Mechanism to control price variation

Pajeet is a Jow Forums meme for designating unqualified workers. Lurk more and keep the replies centered on technical matters.

Are you Indian?

>Uma Pessoa
He's Brazilian, obviously.

Bancor uses other coins as collaterals. Neither of my ideas rely on that.

I know, I'm just saying that Bancor already accomplishes what you're trying to do through a different mechanism.

So how is difficulty calculated in your protocol?

>Please keep the replies centered on technical matters.

Yeah no. I'm going to do whatever I want you clown, this isn't your personal subreddit

Attached: brainlet4.png (500x533, 66K)

Regardless of what topic you're discussing, you need to communicate properly. Bad grammar makes it your writing hard to read.

I have a comment about this:

>>Since transaction fees are destroyed there won’t be a struggle between miners and other users ultimately leading to 10 dollars fees. If necessary the transaction fees can be regulated using the hash-rate as a parameter in an analogous way to the block reward.

I don't think you understand what miners do. How are you going to eliminate competition between miners? There are limited rewards that need to be allocated between them. You need competition and proof of work for the network to be secure. In your protocol miners could easily collude to alter the blockchain.

No, bancor requires a oracle to feed price data that can then be used in the bancor formula to calculate to how much bancor coins your deposit will be converted. You could point some other "problems" but since we don't really have reliable oracle technology this one kinda kills it.
The same way it currently is. So that a block is found every X minutes.
>>>/rules/3

The competition between miners and people making transactions will cease to exist. The former wants high fees and the later low ones, since transactions per block are limited.

Miners still compete among each other for the block reward.

I meant >>/rules/6

Thanks. I will update the text.

>The competition between miners and people making transactions will cease to exist
This is not a thing. There is no competition between miners and users. Bitcoin miners don't want high fees. When fees are high, people make fewer transactions, so for miners fees don't matter that much.

Bitcoin charges fees for two reasons: 1) to avoid the network from being flood attacked, 2) to allocate limited block space to competing users.

you should use proper grammar

Bitcoin miners are not a single entity. But everyone of them wants profit and as group they will push fees as high as possible.
Fees don't go to infinite because there is the group of people making transactions pushing the prices down. Everyone of them also wants to maximize their balances and will push fees to zero if possible.

>Bitcoin charges fees for two reasons: 1) to avoid the network from being flood attacked, 2) to allocate limited block space to competing users.
That's why the protocol has fees, not why the miners want them or why the normal users don't want to pay them. In a free market no one acts altruistically "for the market".
O of course there are two points, where the network works as efficiently as possible and the miners or the other users maximize their profits.

>Bitcoin miners are not a single entity. But everyone of them wants profit and as group they will push fees as high as possible.

This is utter nonsense. Do you have any data to back this up? Or is it just an assumption?

You didn't answer my comment. When fees go up, people make less transactions. So for miners if makes no difference if fees are high or low. In fact, if fees are too high, users may shift to another coin, which could kill the network.

That's how the free market works. You can act in the benefit of the market if you want but if someone else can profit more by not doing so they will. The equilibrium is achieved when those two forces balance each other out, this is the invisible hand.

>You didn't answer my comment. When fees go up, people make less transactions.
I acknowledged it as a valid statement.
>So for miners if makes no difference if fees are high or low.
You mean that it does make a difference?
>In fact, if fees are too high, users may shift to another coin, which could kill the network.
Miners as a group don't care. If there is space for more profit someone will take it. This doesn't kill the network because there are the non-miners pushing the fees down.

Dude, as I said earlier, HIGH FEES HURT MINERS, so it's against their interests to have high fees. In the past, miners have forked Bitcoin and Litecoin because the fees were too high. When fees are high, people cease to make transactions, and miners lose money because of that.

I'm not talking about people "acting in favor of the market." Stop philosophizing and making assumptions about things you don't understand. You don't need to show me you have an economics degree.

>In the past, miners have forked Bitcoin and Litecoin because the fees were too high.
The fact that people had to fork the protocol in the past to artificially increase the supply of transactions and low the fee to a point deemed better only shows that miners do not act as an altruistic group but take any profit available.
>I'm not talking about people "acting in favor of the market."
You are. What takes the price to a point buyers and sellers deem optimum is not their knowledge of the existence of a price for which them as group maximize profits but the struggle between both groups.

>only shows that miners do not act as an altruistic group but take any profit available.

I know this. That was never my point. I never argued that people act altruistically. You don't need to lecture me on Adam Smith. Take a deep breath, calm down, and read what I actually wrote before replying.

I said that when fees are high, people stop making transactions, WHICH DRIVES THE PRICE DOWN AND HURTS MINERS. SO, SELF-INTERESTED MINERS WOULD RATHER KEEP FEES TO A MINIMUM, AS THEY WANT PRICES TO GO UP. There is data to back up what I just said. We have SEEN miners forked Bitcoin and Litecoin because of high fees and small blocks.

I'm not making arguments about human nature and whether people are altruistic or not. I'm just making a factual observation. If you can't understand this, you'll never be able to fix your paper.

I'm not going to bother with your ideas because I already know you aren't someone who bothers with proper grammar and I just assume your ideas are shit. My advice to you is kys.

>I said that when fees are high, people stop making transactions
And I acknowledged it as correct.

Then I don't understand what you are saying. Can you please state clearly what the problem would be?