Transaction fees in cryptocurrencies new generation — two approaches

On a normal day netizens Ethereum consume more than 40 billion units of gas. When the demand for transactions increases and new units 100% occupied, with demand growing and the price of gas, and the total daily cost of gas exceeds $3.5 million.

Wallets Ethereum play a key role in determining the price of gas and the speed of the transaction (i.e., how quickly miners will include the transaction in the block), and to determine the prices, by default they use different methods. Of course, in most wallets the user is free to set the price of gas on their own and bear the associated risks, but most focused on the price determined by the wallet.

Ideally, the purses have as default price to set the minimum value required in order to receive confirmation of the transaction in the time interval specified by the user. In determining such prices the majority of the purses is focused on the oracles, asked the analytical resources, the most common of which is

Dan Larimer, developer of the protocols underlying BitShares, Steemit and future EOS, a different approach: instead of direct commissions for conducting transactions using «bandwidth», the width of which depends on the amount of tokens in the user’s wallet, frozen for a sufficiently long period. In other words, a purse with 100 frozen token can perform significantly more actions in the network than a wallet with 10 tokens. The transaction from Alice to Bob does not cost the sender anything.

Transaction fee – not the most important aspect of the two protocols, and the controversy between Larimer and acne Baleriny other fundamental differences flashes for the first time, but each time the exchange is interesting.

This time it all started with a tweet Buterin about commissions Ethereum:

The lesson learned in 2017: when units are filled to 100%, transaction fees become more volatile than rates of the cryptocurrency. Perhaps for the cost of a single action (in contrast to the long-term, such as storage costs) the idea of a fixed fee may not be so bad.

Larimer responded:

I agree with Vitaly in one: the Commission needs to be fixed, and equal to zero. Direct commissions are obsolete; they create the object of taxation, not user-friendly and clog up the network. But EOS cannot sasamat transactions.

Buterin not to be outdone, however, his argument seems convincing:

Yes because in your system there is a fee; they are simply hidden in the cost of frozen capital, is transparent and simple price action.

What followed is also a very reasonable response, although clearly demonstrating the attitude of Larimer to its users:

Perception means more than reality. People just don’t perceive the costs of frozen capital in the way that they react to direct costs. EOS users can make payments how they want, and transaction fees lead to the reduction of capital. For users who believe in the future of token (the hope of the growth rate), the Commission perceived negatively.

This regular exchange of views ended, leaving commentators food for further discussions.

Without making far-reaching conclusions from the correspondence dialogue cryptocurrency titans should nonetheless be noted that the ICO EOS Larimer preferred to hold on Ethereum, and not on its own offspring – the Bitshares platform. The contract token EOS
is consistently in the top ten consumers of natural gas Ethereum.

Добавить комментарий