The fees are not only rewards for staking (nobody would stake if there would be no fees, so you need a completely different anti-sybil mechanism) but they are also a vital part of the spam-protection ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... mechanism. Going feeless is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more complex than just "not paying the validators".
Regarding you other points, I can however understand where you are coming from and your concerns would be completely justified if IOTA would be like any other DLT. It is ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... however very important to understand the vision and purpose of IOTA. IOTA is not just trying to build a "better DLT" but a protocol that can serve as a foundation for the upcoming "Internet of Things".
The vision of this "4th industrial revolution" is that machines will ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe become autonomous economic actors that need to facilitate payments between each other. You will i.e. have self-driving cars, driving around people in the city and earning money during the day and driving to a charging station and paying to get their batterys refilled, at night.
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe This vision only works if we can agree on a payment standard between all of these machines. Using a centralized payment provider for this is not going to work - not just because of "political" reasons but also because it introduces a single point of failure where technical ...
You need a system that is resilient and a DLT seems to be the best solution.
The machines that are going to use such a DLT are not going to send their transactions to some "semi-centralized node ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... providers" that need to be incentivized and payed to run the nodes but the machines themselves will be the nodes. The incentive for these machines to take part in the network will simply be the fact that they need to transact with other machines in the same network - or ...
In that context it makes no sense to ask these machines to pay fees when they want to interact with each other. They are already providing hardware and processing capabilities to the network simply by taking ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... part and it would be absurd to ask them to pay a fee on top of that. Not only would it hinder the free flow of funds between all of these devices but it would also prevent a lot of "micro-transaction" and "pay-per-use" based use cases.
Of course this is a grand vision ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... and it will take some time to get there but we are already working together with some of the biggest companies in the space (Bosch, Dell, Intel, OMG and so on) to make this vision become a reality.
In the mean time there are several use cases that already now benefit ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... from a feeless base layer and we are already seeing major adoption happening in several area i.e. the covid tracking in germany, supply chains in africa, and many many others where the cost efficiancy to run a node, outweighs the potential fees payed in other protocols by ...
I hope that I could clarify some of your concerns regarding IOTA and it is maybe now easier to understand why and how IOTA aims to be self-incentivized for its participants.
Btw.: The fact that the base layer itself is feeless does not mean that ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... node operators can not rent out access to their nodes to others and ask for fees for doing that. We are already seeing similar service providers in other eco systems (i.e. Infura for Ethereum) and a user that wants to use the network without having to either rely on ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... their own or one of the several public nodes might of course need to pay a fee to get access to the system.
Oof! I am done - sorry for the wall of text :P
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe That's totally fine. I think Cardano serves its purpose very well but it wouldn't perform very well in the scenario I just described.
The BFT-style aspect of Ouroboros would already prevent a lot the required properties to hold (i.e. dynamic availability).
You didn't mean to simply remove fees from the game all together but to allow merchants to i.e. cover the cost for their clients.
Of course this can be done with delegated fees and it is a powerful concept to lower ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... the entry barrier for new users and boost adoption (especially if your gains have enough margin to cover these costs).
Well ... In that case just read my comment as a nice summary of IOTAs vision 😅
If you are fine with this number of validators, then you don't even need to be worried about any of the things I wrote but as soon as the amount of ...
I really hope that DeFi and it's inevitable future of having to deal with these kind of "problems" will finally make people understand why it is a bad idea to build decentralized systems that try to establish a shared perception of time among all nodes.
It doesn't just severely limit scalability but it also creates these really tricky problems where even if you build a system that is "secure" and where the participants are incentivized to behave "honest", it ultimately doesn't matter because at the end of the day every ...
... block producer runs an algorithm and there will always be people that will study these algorithms and try to game them to their advantage.
As soon as you give "somebody" (no matter how honest) control over how others perceive time you are in for some serious problems.
Since I am still waiting for my internet connection to recover I thought that I could at least write down the basic ideas behind the Multiverse consensus:
Blockchain tracks a single ledger state of a single longest chain.
Blocks are only valid if they contain no double spends and the block producers act as gate keepers who control which transactions are added to the ledger state. Nodes track the "outcome of consensus".
In a DAG based DLT like the one used by IOTA there are no block producers ...
... and anybody can add anything to the underlying data structure at any given time without asking anybody else for permission - even double spends. Every double spend introduces a different version of the ledger state that might or might not be compatible with other ...
If you are a DLT researcher, then you have most probably dreamt of a consensus mechanism:
- without miners
- that doesn't require nodes to query each other
- where nodes "magically" reach consensus in less than a second without wasting network throughput on voting
- that supports an unlimited amount of nodes and validators
- works equally well with a small permissioned set of validators
- that is compatible with PoS, PoW, VDF's and so on ...
- where you can reach finality in 1-2 seconds
- where the chance for an agreement failure is 0
- that doesn't need reattachment or reorganization of the underlying data structure
- where sending a transaction just requires you to gossip your transaction and be done
- where nodes collaboratively validate transactions instead of only the highest weight nodes making decisions
IOTA (much like the universe) doesn't have a total order of events. But in the same way as the universe still allows you to have a total order of events within a "frame of reference" IOTA also allows you to have a total ...
@facemrook@Adrian_Midas@IOTAFanClub@Vrom14286662 ... order of events when it comes to a particular chain of spends. Colored coins allow you to create a traceable and non-forkable chain of spends which creates something like a "frame of reference" in which total order can exist.