How about a less intrusive approach; If Maidsafe builds a decentralized exchange, trading fees get recycled.
1 Like
The problem with this, I think, is that such an exchange would be buiilt on top of the core protocol as opposed to being part of it. I believe any recycling would need to be part of the core, and I’m quite sure there is not desire to try to build in such a thing at that level.
Not sure it would provide the amount of recycling desired, anyway.
A transaction fee of 1/100 of one percent would not be very burdensome as a cost of transaction, but if the transaction velocity becomes anything like we all hope, then even that small percentage would keep the farming being fruitful. Maybe a different percentage would be better, whether more or less.
The programming of this is what I don’t know about. I’m sure it could be done, theoretically, but not sure if it’s desireable at a core level at this time, or if there might not be a better long-term solution to rewarding resource contribution to sustain the network perpetually. Or perhaps I’m looking at a solution to something that has already been solved by the team but hasn’t filtered out to the community.
I am not totally against the idea of adding transaction fees for recycling but I do think that having no transaction fees is an attention grabber within the crypto community; it simplifies transactions and allows for even the most minute transactions to be processed.
I also assumed with my idea that there would be a recycle address where coins can be sent to.
There is still 10 years until we see if there will be enough safecoins to recycle and we will just have to study the stats as we approach this period.
1 Like
Fergish I’m actually also thinking about multinational corporations making use of Safecoins. If they send $1M, that would allready cost $10000, with your 1percent suggestion. If you can send $1M with Dwolla for $0,25, Safecoin is basically loosing out because we are not cheaper. Actually we want everybody on board Safecoin and the only way that we can do that is by being, cheaper & faster transferwise.
0.00000001 Safecoin would make a Safecoin transaction ridiculous cheap, this is just super attractive for everyone. Wes your probably talking about moneyhungrymonsterminers, the thing is the Maidsafe network can do without them, avarage people woulden’t mined, to become a farmer. Smart farmers woulden’t even have the cost of electricity (they would generate theirs with solarpanels). Maidsafe will become so important that it will even be used by governments and integrated into parkingmetres, Lamppost and home appliance.
You misread my post. At 100th of one percent the fee on one million would be 100 safecoin. Not too bad, but could always make it 1000th of one percent or 10 safecoin per million, or even less. The point is that whatever the fee is, it could be really insignificant compared to other means, but it would feed back in to driving the resource end of the network forever.
Yeah, I thought about that and that’s why I’m not worried at this point. We actually need observed operational dynamics in order to figure out the percentages and other algorithms. But I think it’s something to institute fairly early to extend the bleed-out of approaching the hard cap and give everyone assurance that there will always be safecoin to farm, and thus long-term reason to maintain the network from a distributed incentive perspective.
Yeah sorry I misreddit (LOL), but the thing is 100 Safecoins @ today’s price is $1.52.
That’s more than 2 times as expensive as Moneybookers (0,50euro)
That’s 6 times more expensive than Dwolla ($0,25)
I’m afraid to say it, how much more that is compare to a Ripple transactionfee
One might argue that a company moving $1M, is not going to worry about the transactionfee. But I think entrepreneurs are getting smarter and realise that they should save on everything to stay in business.
Yeah, whatever precentage works. The point is to have some sort of feedback into sustaining the network incentives.
Well said David, I personally do not like transaction fees. As far as the network is concerned these are tiny transactions and not and issue for the net to handle. If I pay 1 safecoin for something that is all I want to pay, a cash like system 
.
Recycling and eventually (maybe from day 1) pay for us in some cases will ensure farmers are always rewarded. I think as a community we will ensure this and as the farming is harder the values should be larger so it should work out. We do need to get the algorithm correct, but I am sure we will. We were in a meeting today with the Uni contacts and have told them in six weeks or so we need to spend some serious time in calculating this algorithm (farming rates etc.). We can find hundreds of wrong ways with magic numbers but I feel we can have a single difficulty type value that is agreed from time to time depended on exterior values. This should prove to be very effective. In bitcoins case for instance they chose a value and stick with it, we could do likewise, but I think we can do better in many ways. We have the advantage over bitcoin of the results so far of crypto and should use these to improve and not clone previous algorithms. I am very confident in this part we will be very accurate.
I also wonder that as the network handles all data, would farmers not just be built into network devices anyway to continue giving us all access to data. I may have more on that soon 
3 Likes
I think it’s best to have a transaction fee denominated in %, and not in fixed amounts of Safecoins.
I say this because, when Bitcoin had a fairly low value, the transaction fee were less than 0.01$, which gave BTC an enormous advantage on eWallets like Paypal, but as the price of BTC rose, the minimal transaction fee is 0.06$, and that’s only when the value of the BTC is 650$. Think about how big the minimal transaction fee will be, if the BTC will rise to 10,000$ (as some predict)?
A fee denominated in % will keep the Safecoin network preferred, and cheaper at all times.
The only thing is, it’s hard to compete with free.
I was looking at a transaction fee being useful to keep the recycling at a good level, but David Irvine (see post above yours) seems certain that this factor will be dealt with otherwise, in which case no transaction fee will make safecoin virtually beyond competition for economy of use, as well as it’s other attributes (anonymity, transacton speed, scalability, etc).
2 Likes
Dude. this is all wrong…
There aren’t only 3 types of BTC, it can be divided down millions of times, into very very very very very very very very small amounts.
Not only three.
(That’s just the only error I wish to address at the present time
No transactionfee that’s even better, that way it’s attractive for consumers and merchants.
Dude I know what I’m talking about, there are 3 Bitcoin units (BTC, mBTC and μBTC) and blaablablaa. Wellcome to the club Double U
