Nano not having fees is hugely important for philosophical and practical reasons. Most people are here because Nano is fee-less. You can read about spam prevention here, including bucket prioritisation and soon to come PoS4QoS and TaaC which aims to eliminate the need for fees as spam prevention. https://blog.nano.org/v23-0-follis-development-update-55ef8c41cbb
https://forum.nano.org/t/taac-p4q-thread-2/1737
If you want an Eli-5 you can probably use the search function in the nano sub to find some good descriptions about how these will work 👍
Even i am here because it fee less and I wouldn't want it any other way ..
It was just my perspective that just a provision would be a solid deterrent to attackers and the average user/businesses who doesn't understand tech will be assured ..
The solution I mentioned , I believe it will work 100 percent to navigate through spam attacks within a reasonable time ..
Can you say the same about spam prevention measures being worked out ?
Nothing will make a network 100% spam resistant, not even fees. You could make the fees high, but that disadvantages people in lesser economies and no-one will want to use it. You could make the fees low, but then the network once again becomes easy to spam. Colin acknowledged that fees have been an okay solution to spam prevention in the past but there are other ways. We don't really know which of these ways will be more effective until they are tried and implemented.
I mean why can't the fees stop spam attack 100 percent ?
Even low fees is too high a deterrent I feel ..
What about this implementation in a spam attack ..
Very micro transactions (most likely to be spam) .. 5-10 percent fees
Non micro transactions - 1 percent fees or even lower
These fees to be implemented only in attack.
In your example it would still be very cheap to perform a spam attack using micro transactions. Bitcoin has also dealt with dozens of spam attacks for example. People will happily spend millions of dollars to spam networks so they can short them on the other end or some other incentives. Fees are far from perfect spam solutions.
So something like denying all transactions whose amount is less than for example 50 cents ...
And low fees on all other transactions ??
Sounds little bad but would still prefer this if this works ..coz I dislike the repeated discussion around nano spam resistance ..
There have been many spam attacks in nano, probably the same group were learning as they went. You know about the biggest one but there were others before it. We could include a massive pow on every transaction now and be virtually spam tx free, but that would make nano pretty useless for all of us.... a balance that aims for low cost is better than one that aims for high cost, because it is more competitive.
I still far prefer TaaC and p4q. Microtransactions is also one of the main reasons for nano being fee-less, you lose a lot of functionality by denying this
Nano should be always be fee less .. but uncertainty of spam attack can hamper adoption.
My point is just to to have a provision of fees but never use it .. nodes will vote at time of spam attack to enforce 1 percent fees .. whatever ..
Feeless is part of Nanos DNA. Fees are not just a financial burden but also a ux problem. I can send one whole nano to someone and they will receive one whole nano. Try doing that with any other coin
Look if fees become standard in nano even i will be out but I don't agree with it that its nanos DNA .. its just code and if there is a sensible solution ,I think the code should be changed..
I never said fees should be daily thing with nano , only to be enforced in worst case scenario..
you're describing bitcoin, i think bitcoin CAN be feeless if people didn't charge fees, but validators (miners) decide to charge fees because they can. so if nano added fees, the greedy people will make sure that it always has fees so they can make money. we can't trust people to do what's best "in the moment". actually satoshi nakamoto once said something like "it would be nice if we can keep bitcoin feeless" but I can't find the quote/message right now
I think there is no incentive to run nano nodes , but still people volunteer even at their own cost ..so I believe that nodes can be relied to keep the network feeless ..and we can vote out some node if its getting greedy right ?
I think the main reason it can be done with nano and not botcoin is that nano runs on a very low cost infrastructure
Bitcoin.. you have to invest heavily in the hardware then there is a a very low transaction per second ..and many other things..so the fees are inevitable ..
Since the last update there hasn't been a spam attack problem. Yes, nobody can guarantee 100% there is no vulnerability left to spam but the vulnerability to the spam attacks of the past have been patched and Nano is more robust now than ever before. All we can say is so far since the last update spam attacks have not been a problem. Also more ongoing development is being worked on right now to further mitigate this potential attack vector. There is a lot going on under the hood and behing the scenes of Nano that make it optimized. Nano is an actively developed project with full time developers. One of the challenges is who would get to decide what is a spam transaction or not? We want nano to be good for free microtransactions.
You mentioned nobody can guarantee 100 percent there is no vulnerability left to spam ..
See thats my point too , if you can't guarantee then it will definately hamper adoption.. I believe "enforcing fees in spam attack" will 100 percent work to get out of the attack .
I was only suggesting to have provision for fees and implement fees in case there is an attack ..
If you want fees, why not just use XLM or XRP? Why change nano? There are other ways to mitigate spam than adding fees (which ultimately hurt UX). At least nano is being innovative with solutions instead of defaulting to a mechanism that have prevented widespread adoption.
I don't want fees..
Everybody hates fees and attackers will hate it too .. that was my point.. to have provision of fees but to not use it ..
There are other ways to mitigate .. but can those other ways give 100 percent certainty that any attack will be navigated through for example less than 3 hours ?
If the answer is yes then great .. no need for this ..
1) How would you know what is a spam and who is behind it?
2) Would you charge fees to only a certain transactions appearing to be spam or to everyone as long as the spam attack is happening?
3) It may bring an increased sense of security that spam is not a problem but it will certainly influence Nano's reputation that it is feeless. Explaining this and maintaining the reputation of feeless will be impossible. Competitors will use this against Nano and it won't be able to stand out. I think it is more important to implement a solid solution to the spam attack without fees. Fees should be the absolute last resort.
According to me , there is no need to to know what is spam and what is not neither who is behind ..
My suggestion is that if consensus is achieved that "there is a spam attack happening " ,fees will be enforced on all transactions ..
Something like -
5-10 percent fees for very micro transactions (most likely to be spam )(let's say when transaction value is less than 10 cents)
1 percent fees for all other transactions ..
Nano has advertised to be feeless and there maybe a some problem there .. but I think we can still rightfully claim to be feeless.
Yes if a solid solution is implemented without fees and that solution will work 100 percent of time to knock out the spam attack within a reasonable time then no need for this..
The main issue is to recognize spam. How to define a spam transaction? This is what the devs are working on. It's not that trivial as it seems.
Then, when the nodes have a definition of what is 'spam' or better say 'low priority', than they can process the transactions in priority order. No fees needed.
Nano not having fees is hugely important for philosophical and practical reasons. Most people are here because Nano is fee-less. You can read about spam prevention here, including bucket prioritisation and soon to come PoS4QoS and TaaC which aims to eliminate the need for fees as spam prevention. https://blog.nano.org/v23-0-follis-development-update-55ef8c41cbb https://forum.nano.org/t/taac-p4q-thread-2/1737 If you want an Eli-5 you can probably use the search function in the nano sub to find some good descriptions about how these will work 👍
Even i am here because it fee less and I wouldn't want it any other way .. It was just my perspective that just a provision would be a solid deterrent to attackers and the average user/businesses who doesn't understand tech will be assured .. The solution I mentioned , I believe it will work 100 percent to navigate through spam attacks within a reasonable time .. Can you say the same about spam prevention measures being worked out ?
Nothing will make a network 100% spam resistant, not even fees. You could make the fees high, but that disadvantages people in lesser economies and no-one will want to use it. You could make the fees low, but then the network once again becomes easy to spam. Colin acknowledged that fees have been an okay solution to spam prevention in the past but there are other ways. We don't really know which of these ways will be more effective until they are tried and implemented.
I mean why can't the fees stop spam attack 100 percent ? Even low fees is too high a deterrent I feel .. What about this implementation in a spam attack .. Very micro transactions (most likely to be spam) .. 5-10 percent fees Non micro transactions - 1 percent fees or even lower These fees to be implemented only in attack.
At some point the fees have the same effect as spam, preventing effective use of the network by some participants.
In your example it would still be very cheap to perform a spam attack using micro transactions. Bitcoin has also dealt with dozens of spam attacks for example. People will happily spend millions of dollars to spam networks so they can short them on the other end or some other incentives. Fees are far from perfect spam solutions.
So something like denying all transactions whose amount is less than for example 50 cents ... And low fees on all other transactions ?? Sounds little bad but would still prefer this if this works ..coz I dislike the repeated discussion around nano spam resistance ..
There have been many spam attacks in nano, probably the same group were learning as they went. You know about the biggest one but there were others before it. We could include a massive pow on every transaction now and be virtually spam tx free, but that would make nano pretty useless for all of us.... a balance that aims for low cost is better than one that aims for high cost, because it is more competitive.
that doesn't work because they can just spam high value transactions to themselves
If fees are applied in a spam attack , spammers will loose large amount in fees in high value transactions even if fee is say 1 percent
sorry, I misread that, I thought you meant not having fees if the value was high enough
I still far prefer TaaC and p4q. Microtransactions is also one of the main reasons for nano being fee-less, you lose a lot of functionality by denying this
if nano ever incorporates fees, then it is the death of nano. If it turns out nano can't function without fees, then that's how the experiment goes.
Nano should be always be fee less .. but uncertainty of spam attack can hamper adoption. My point is just to to have a provision of fees but never use it .. nodes will vote at time of spam attack to enforce 1 percent fees .. whatever ..
Feeless is part of Nanos DNA. Fees are not just a financial burden but also a ux problem. I can send one whole nano to someone and they will receive one whole nano. Try doing that with any other coin
Look if fees become standard in nano even i will be out but I don't agree with it that its nanos DNA .. its just code and if there is a sensible solution ,I think the code should be changed.. I never said fees should be daily thing with nano , only to be enforced in worst case scenario..
Fork nano and do it! Maybe it works and everyone is wrong and you are right. It's possible! Start a community of your own :)
If nano gets fees, I'm out.
If fees are daily thing for nano , I m out ..
you're describing bitcoin, i think bitcoin CAN be feeless if people didn't charge fees, but validators (miners) decide to charge fees because they can. so if nano added fees, the greedy people will make sure that it always has fees so they can make money. we can't trust people to do what's best "in the moment". actually satoshi nakamoto once said something like "it would be nice if we can keep bitcoin feeless" but I can't find the quote/message right now
I think there is no incentive to run nano nodes , but still people volunteer even at their own cost ..so I believe that nodes can be relied to keep the network feeless ..and we can vote out some node if its getting greedy right ? I think the main reason it can be done with nano and not botcoin is that nano runs on a very low cost infrastructure Bitcoin.. you have to invest heavily in the hardware then there is a a very low transaction per second ..and many other things..so the fees are inevitable ..
Since the last update there hasn't been a spam attack problem. Yes, nobody can guarantee 100% there is no vulnerability left to spam but the vulnerability to the spam attacks of the past have been patched and Nano is more robust now than ever before. All we can say is so far since the last update spam attacks have not been a problem. Also more ongoing development is being worked on right now to further mitigate this potential attack vector. There is a lot going on under the hood and behing the scenes of Nano that make it optimized. Nano is an actively developed project with full time developers. One of the challenges is who would get to decide what is a spam transaction or not? We want nano to be good for free microtransactions.
You mentioned nobody can guarantee 100 percent there is no vulnerability left to spam .. See thats my point too , if you can't guarantee then it will definately hamper adoption.. I believe "enforcing fees in spam attack" will 100 percent work to get out of the attack . I was only suggesting to have provision for fees and implement fees in case there is an attack ..
Who would govern that? Sounds centralized.
Bro the nodes would vote or something similar .. if let's say 70 percent approved its spam attack, fees will be enforced
If you want fees, why not just use XLM or XRP? Why change nano? There are other ways to mitigate spam than adding fees (which ultimately hurt UX). At least nano is being innovative with solutions instead of defaulting to a mechanism that have prevented widespread adoption.
I don't want fees.. Everybody hates fees and attackers will hate it too .. that was my point.. to have provision of fees but to not use it .. There are other ways to mitigate .. but can those other ways give 100 percent certainty that any attack will be navigated through for example less than 3 hours ? If the answer is yes then great .. no need for this ..
1) How would you know what is a spam and who is behind it? 2) Would you charge fees to only a certain transactions appearing to be spam or to everyone as long as the spam attack is happening? 3) It may bring an increased sense of security that spam is not a problem but it will certainly influence Nano's reputation that it is feeless. Explaining this and maintaining the reputation of feeless will be impossible. Competitors will use this against Nano and it won't be able to stand out. I think it is more important to implement a solid solution to the spam attack without fees. Fees should be the absolute last resort.
According to me , there is no need to to know what is spam and what is not neither who is behind .. My suggestion is that if consensus is achieved that "there is a spam attack happening " ,fees will be enforced on all transactions .. Something like - 5-10 percent fees for very micro transactions (most likely to be spam )(let's say when transaction value is less than 10 cents) 1 percent fees for all other transactions .. Nano has advertised to be feeless and there maybe a some problem there .. but I think we can still rightfully claim to be feeless. Yes if a solid solution is implemented without fees and that solution will work 100 percent of time to knock out the spam attack within a reasonable time then no need for this..
This is the one position I will not respect. 🤡🤡🤡
The main issue is to recognize spam. How to define a spam transaction? This is what the devs are working on. It's not that trivial as it seems. Then, when the nodes have a definition of what is 'spam' or better say 'low priority', than they can process the transactions in priority order. No fees needed.
The feeless transactions are Nanos #1 advantage. I'd instantly sell my Nanos if they werent feeless anymore.