Min/Max prices

Post Reply
indolering
Posts: 800
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:26 pm
os: mac

Min/Max prices

Post by indolering »

I believe that the main objection to the floating price proposal is manipulation of the voting mechanism. Imposing min/max prices to a floating price proposal would act as a backstop against such manipulations.

The main drawback to min/max pricing is that changing them requires a soft-fork, similar to that of hardcoded prices. They enable a range of acceptable prices, but it's impossible to create an acceptable range for all exchange rates.

I was mulling hardcoded values today and realized that the softfork could be thought of (very crudely) as a vote with a 51% threshold. We could emulate that to some degree in the voting protocol itself by simply requiring a higher threshold to change the min/max values.

As Jeremy pointed out on IRC, miners risk their profits if they rebel against a fork. Thus the questions becomes, "which is harder: getting 90% of miners to change their votes at no risk, or getting 51% of miners to change their votes at the risk of losing their mining profits if the attack is unsuccessful?"

I don't really know the answer to that question, however, we needn't resort to an "enemy of the good" situation: we can always manually override such settings using the classic 51% majority.
DNS is much more than a key->value datastore.

tosh0
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:48 pm

Re: Min/Max prices

Post by tosh0 »

i think all this discussion is irrelevant, the only thing that it's needed to enforce at network level is the 0.01 locked coin per name. According to khal, i could write a name_new with 0.00001 coins, this should be prevented. There's 1billion names available, in the far future the "locked coin" can be lowered. the rest of the operations and tx are just there to prevent spam.

The truth is, miner don't even need fees, since we are piggy-backing on bitcoin. It is enough with the block reward at this point, fees should be directed to development bounties, i think even the miners would agree that increasing the NMC utility and value is in the common interest! it would raise value, while higher fees to miners only will serve to crash the price more, as it is now that most mining pools automatically exchange nmc for btc...
NMC: more stable than BTC!

indolering
Posts: 800
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:26 pm
os: mac

Re: Min/Max prices

Post by indolering »

tosh0 wrote: The truth is, miner don't even need fees, since we are piggy-backing on bitcoin.
Name fees don't go back to miners.
tosh0 wrote:i think all this discussion is irrelevant
This is a really petty thing to say and ironic considering you went off-topic. Please, please don't comment on this thread again.
DNS is much more than a key->value datastore.

tosh0
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:48 pm

Re: Min/Max prices

Post by tosh0 »

Sorry for the outburst but if you read again, i explain that first you need to enforce the name fee registration fee (locked coin or destroyed coin).

Discussion is secondary IMHO until you enforce it. AFAIK from the original bitcointalk thread this was not enforced by the network. (AKA blocks with lower amounts are not rejected)

I didn't read the code, so maybe i'm wrong. Or maybe we are talking about different name fees, if so please point me to your fee proposal again.
Namefees don't go back to miners
i was talking about the name fees outlined originally by khal here, with i support. i do not support raising fees because the more people with access to the system the merrier. i do support multi-year renewal.

Now, the reality is that i don't know what do you mean with the Min/Max prices,either as outlined by you or by the wiki, that's why i went offtopic. If you could start again outlining your proposal in more simple terms. Thanks.
NMC: more stable than BTC!

Post Reply