muyuu,
why do you want bitcoin to become more or less like a bank?
using fees to stop empty blocks is wrong and can become cumbersome.
I know many bitcoiners are bitcoiners in the first place because of hatred towards banks. But that was not the point at all.
It's not being like banks. It's that banks address the same concerns when they process transfers:
- they want to collect a fee
- they don't want to discourage transfers as that means no fee
- they know they can collect more when transfers are bigger, because it means more money is involved
- they try not to over-collect over a point as their cost is the same and big players can start looking for different channels
So basically trying to collect in a similar way to banks is not being like banks. It means banks have to address the same problem.
I came with the transfer fee scheme (as usually happens in Europe) and DeathAndTaxes countered with a check fee scheme. Checks are not the same as typical checks are all within a quantity big enough that's worth to go and collect, and not so big it's crazy to pick such amount of money in cash. So a fixed scheme suits that well.
Bankers also pee and sleep? do you sleep or do you try to avoid behaving like a banker?
instead, stop blocks that do not contain at least n% of waiting (at the time block is solved) transactions, where n can be based on the number of waiting transactions or their value (input+output).
this way you don't have fees and you can even mine empty blocks if nobody is doing transactions, otherwise you have to do you work and confirm them.
spiccioli
This involves dealing with network implementation concerns. Thing is, it's not really trivial to determine if a miner has not seen a transaction or he has simply ignored it. It's probably a feasible mechanism within some accepted % error.
All this extra networking work would not be compensated though. Remember miners have no obligation to include transactions. I can understand big miners will try to use this opportunity to enforce some fees, and rightly so. You are basically asking the miners to do extra work to guarantee that freeloaders can continue to use their work for free, and that they will compete with botnets and "free electricity dorms" with no compensation whatsoever.
muyuu,
the problem is not that miners do some work to test if transactions have been included in solved block or not, it is not even asking miners to do some more work for free: if a miner does not want to do some more work he can quit.
the problem is how to avoid that a big enough miner, who mines empty blocks only, is able to disrupt the bitcoin network.
given that the bitcoin network exists to handle transactions, if a block does not contain at least 20% (just to give a number) of waiting transactions it should not be accepted.
if this lowers all miners income, this is not a big issue, because it is just the price to pay to keep bitcoin healthy.
I'm not againt botnets, I'm against botnets who try to jeopardize the bitcoin network.
spiccioli.
