Apologies, forgot for a second Nostr relays act as servers, appreciate the reminder. It’s worth noting though, that they are considering P2P elements for things like media storage using bitorrent + NIP-94.
I’m not trying to deter the conversation from adding a cryptoeconomic incentive to the P2P layer, in fact, I think a cryptoeconomic solution is probably more robust and sustainable.
I’m just pointing out other P2P networks that are thriving without them to look for inspiration in thinking outside the box. Another example, the Folding@Home project, aimed at understanding protein folding and assisting in medical research, also thrived on voluntary participation. It’s a great example of how a P2P network can contribute to scientific advancements without a direct financial reward system.
Just dropping an idea here. Currently you can already require a user to pay a fee to publish a transaction via your node, but it would need some customizations to go-zenon and clients.
I think this should work:
User sends node provider two signed transactions. The first one is the actual transaction and the second one is the fee transaction going to the node provider’s address.
Node provider verifies both transactions (checks plasma, balances etc.).
Node provider publishes both transactions at the same time and by doing so receives the fee.
If the user doesn’t provide the fee transaction the node provider just ignores the user’s request.
This would allow node providers to set whatever fees they want and request whatever ZTS they want as payment. The downside is that the user has to have enough plasma to be able to send two transactions back-to-back (or maybe the node provider allows 10/tx per payment or something). But this should be relatively easy to implement and wouldn’t need protocol changes.
I like an idea like this a lot more than relying on bridge fees. Does not seem right to rely on an ETH bridge to fund nodes to process TXs on a different chain.
As for the token utility, that’s the poorest answer one could ever give. It’s moot and does nothing. Again, check the data on Coingecko or elsewhere. Fee never helped in anyway.
Now I will rephrase it : plasma is already a fee abstraction. We should keep working in a way that doesn’t betray the design that makes the NoM different and good. It can be improved and this is the direction the discussion should takes.
@Chadass alienc0der never said that, he actually said the opposite. You’re thinking of moonbaze, but even then, that’s not what moonbaze was saying. He still has other reasoning from what I interpreted. screenshots below
The screenshot you shared isn’t the one I shared. Both agreed. Plus, your argument doesn’t address the feeless reasoning and it doesn’t address the twisted idea of the fee as an utility that helps : it does not help.
The fee proposal, even with lanes, doesn’t helps with a design where plasma abstracts the fee.
