Questions about DBC's transaction fees on SN?

[Nigel]

@danda

I definitely think/agree we as a community must build decentralized solutions in order for us to succeed.

100% agree and my full intention. All things should remove middle men and not let them back in. Trust less, peer to peer, and functional is the goal.

[urrtag]

@Nigel

(and I hope this is implemented ) where a 2/3 multi-sig

This should already work with BLS pubkeys/sigs, at least that’s what i got from reading about the upcoming BTC taproot feature. You can “program” in some logic into BLS, like saying that a sig needs to contain the sigs for (A and B) or (A and C) or (B and C) for a 2/3 multi sig.

@JimCollinson

give it two owners

Which is pretty much a 1/2 “mutlisig”, so already supported by BLS. “No owner” DBC should also be possible with a predefined and public privkey/pubkey combo.

[neo]

@Nigel

Where those locked funds go when there is misbehavior is a question though. Can it go to the networks benefit? Can those funds just be burned, or recycled, go to a charity or the foundation?

There was talk of sections having a “pool” to help smooth out farmer payments when perhaps not much resources are purchased for the section.

So maybe the funds can go into this “pool”

OR simply go to the farmers as a “bonus” when it occurs.

[JimCollinson]

Perhaps it’s best if they just stay locked up though. Sometimes these disputes can end up being resolved many years down the line.

[neo]

@JimCollinson

Sometimes these disputes can end up being resolved many years down the line.

I was thinking along the lines of when there is a irresolvable situation. Of course if still open then you cannot have the funds distributed anywhere.

How to define irresolvable may not be possible though.

[Nigel]

@JimCollinson

Perhaps it’s best if they just stay locked up though. Sometimes these disputes can end up being resolved many years down the line.

Good point and would otherwise effectively be a burn which is another option with perceivable perks. I like that idea.

[jlpell]

@neo

I was thinking along the lines of when there is a irresolvable situation

If there is an irresolvable situation then then they should stay locked as Jim describes. That’s one reason why we have divisibility to cure all ills as the fiat values adjust.

[SmoothOperatorGR]

@Nigel

Where those locked funds go when there is misbehavior is a question though. Can it go to the networks benefit? Can those funds just be burned, or recycled, go to a charity or the foundation?

reminds me of a newly understood by me “impermanent loss” sounds to me as bad as that

[urrtag]

@Nigel

misbehavior

What counts as misbehavior? I would say an invalid signature is an invalid sig and shouldn’t be processed by the network in the first place.

So the result is the same as by someone destroying their wallet. I can only think of smart contracts and programming in some logic with a timeout a la send funds to addr x after y number of events (or what alternative there might be for time in the SN). (No, idea if there is a possibility of smart contracts and DBCs working together)

Edit: also that’s why you have 2/3 multisig

[Nigel]

The context is an online purchase where you attempt to avoid intermediaries or third party escrow by locking up funds for a purchased good with a 2/2 sig.
1 sig for buyer and 1 for seller.

If item arrives in tact, they both sign, all good. If it arrives broken or whatever other scenario, one wants purchased good and one wants money so they most likely work this out. Totally P2P.

Otherwise you could do a 2/3 and take any issue to a third party arbitration to resolve it and funds be released.

In the case of an unresolved 2/2, what happens to the funds was the original question. Just lost? Just locked until resolved? Most likely the latter.

So I think that’s the answer.