Time to lower PrivateSend fee, pretty please -- it's up to ~$6 USD!

[amanda_b_johnson]

Hey, all. And especially @UdjinM6 and his Core development crew.

As you already know (this is for the benefit of anyone who doesn't), sending a PrivateSend transaction (the automated kind, not the manual-select kind) rounds up the send amount to the nearest 0.01 Dash.

That's now ~$6.27 USD!

As a big fan of and user of PrivateSend, I'd love if the lowering of this fee could be added to the next software release.

Much thanks for the continuing great work, and a near-complete update to 12.2.

 

[AjM]

I think this is already done in v0.12.2, but not active yet:

All transaction fees are reduced 10x (from 10K per Kb to 1K per Kb), including fees for InstantSend (from 0.001 DASH per input to 0.0001 per input)

https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/v0.12.2.0/doc/release-notes.md

Edit: Welcome back Amanda.

 

[TroyDASH]

This would require mixing denominations of 0.001 right?

 

[UdjinM6]

I think this is already done in v0.12.2, but not active yet:



https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/v0.12.2.0/doc/release-notes.md

Edit: Welcome back Amanda.

InstantSend is not PrivateSend

This would require mixing denominations of 0.001 right?

Yes, the nature of this fee is that it rounds down to the smallest mixing denom to avoid having so called "dead change". We already have 4 mixing denoms (10, 1, 0.1, 0.01) and I'm not sure if we can add yet another one without damaging mixing performance - it could get pretty hard to find mixing parties. I wouldn't promise anything without seeing some results on testnet first

 

[AjM]

InstantSend is not PrivateSend

Indeed, but you said: "All transaction fees are reduced 10x..."

 

[UdjinM6]

Indeed, but you said: "All transaction fees are reduced 10x..."

"All transaction fees are reduced 10x (from 10K per Kb to 1K per Kb)"
and PS fees are not counted per Kb

 

[AjM]

"All transaction fees are reduced 10x (from 10K per Kb to 1K per Kb)"
and PS fees are not counted per Kb

Ok, so Amanda is right then?

 

[UdjinM6]

Ok, so Amanda is right then?

In a sense that fees for PS can be as high as ~$6 - yes. But they can also be as low as normal fees, it really depends on the amount you are trying to send, see my explanation about the PS fee calculation above.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

A little off-topic but relevant in that it would reduce fees..

Would it be better to change mixing and use a similar method to zcoin. They burn a coin and then simply issue a new one. I dunno, seems simpler, faster and cheaper to me.

 

[amanda_b_johnson]

@UdjinM6, if 4 mixing denoms is preferable, what about just lowering them all? So instead of 10, 1, 0.1, and 0.01, they'd be 1, 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001.

What say you?

 

[demo]

Hey, all. And especially @UdjinM6 and his Core development crew.

As you already know (this is for the benefit of anyone who doesn't), sending a PrivateSend transaction (the automated kind, not the manual-select kind) rounds up the send amount to the nearest 0.01 Dash.

That's now ~$6.27 USD!

As a big fan of and user of PrivateSend, I'd love if the lowering of this fee could be added to the next software release.

Much thanks for the continuing great work, and a near-complete update to 12.2.

The solution is not to ask @UdjinM6. Who is he, and he is allowed to play with the numbers? Is he a god or something?

The solution is adaptive Privatesend fee (similar to the adaptive proposal fee of @GrandMasterDash).
Go vote the numbers, you retarded average people! Go vote them now!

 

[amanda_b_johnson]

Although I think that this requires careful thought, because the fees charged for different services on our network will shape customer behavior.

If we can't mix (or charge too much for) 10 denoms, customers may be tempted to go elsewhere for sending large, private transactions. If we can't mix (or charge too much for) 0.001 or 0.0001 denoms, customers may be tempted to go elsewhere to send small, private transactions.

@Ryan Taylor , @eduffield222, @Chuck Williams -- what say you?

 

[demo]

If we can't mix (or charge too much for) 10 denoms, customers may be tempted to go elsewhere for sending large, private transactions. If we can't mix (or charge too much for) 0.001 or 0.0001 denoms, customers may be tempted to go elsewhere to send small, private transactions.

So what is your vote? Is your vote a conditional one?

 

[younglegend]

She brought up very important issue. This matter will increase as dash grows.

maybe we should humble our selves and learn from newer privacy tech-knowledge crypto and do

some softfork? I would love to vote for dash to organize teams to develop and improve tech-knowledge of DASH and

add value to the company.

 

[UdjinM6]

...
maybe we should humble our selves and learn from newer privacy tech-knowledge crypto and do

some softfork?
...

My knowledge in cryptography is limited to some basic stuffs. Implementing and reviewing low level crypto requires way too much time and experience in that specific field to make it right, I personally don't have either one. If someone can find a really good cryptographer who is passionate about Dash and is willing to implement some kind of crypto magic to improve any aspect of Dash - I'm all for it.

 

[demo]

If someone can find a really good cryptographer who is passionate about Dash and is willing to implement some kind of crypto magic to improve any aspect of Dash - I'm all for it.

This could be a very nice government decision: "The MNOs decided to search for cryptographers, and pay them X amount whenever they solve Dash's problems."

Will you give 5 dash from your pocket, to propose this in the budget system, for the benefit of the community? Of course not...nobody does...Or, do you expect the cryptographers to pay the 5 dash?

Thats why the budget system SUCKS! Because it incentivizes greedy selfish people to propose for their own profit, instead of incentivizing people to propose something good for the benefit of the whole community.

 

[RobertWelain]

Totally agree!!!

 

[Chuck Williams]

Although I think that this requires careful thought, because the fees charged for different services on our network will shape customer behavior.

If we can't mix (or charge too much for) 10 denoms, customers may be tempted to go elsewhere for sending large, private transactions. If we can't mix (or charge too much for) 0.001 or 0.0001 denoms, customers may be tempted to go elsewhere to send small, private transactions.

@Ryan Taylor , @eduffield222, @Chuck Williams -- what say you?

@UdjinM6 is arguably one of our most knowledgeable developers, so on the hard-core tech side I would defer to his correction... however... it seems reasonable to me to expect that if the constraint is the number of denominations for performance purposes, then the value of a "10" mixer would predictably diminish as the "dollar density" of each denomination increases. Basically - shifting denominations would likely happen naturally as users shift downward and "regress toward the mean" (mathematically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean).

It would be valuable, and probably necessary, to account for these downward shifts in density as the market values of the denominations are pressed upward. The Dash system/platform will need to react in a number of ways like this in order to accommodate the incoming value. Otherwise, we'll be another overpriced currency too expensive to transact.

OTOH: While mixing & PS transactions may be more costly than regular transactions, I think it's safe to assume that people are willing to pay up to a certain reasonable amount for that privacy. How much? I don't know.... but it's worth accounting the "market rate" for privacy. The challenge here, though, is that most people don't value their privacy *at all* - until their identity is stolen, or some such mess. Market-pricing privacy will get easier, but right now it's nearly impossible, and I daresay almost futile, IMHO. Among urgent issues facing the Dash ecosystem - this is a rising one, but not in the top 5 issues - probably top 10.

My $0.02.

 

[demo]

OTOH: While mixing & PS transactions may be more costly than regular transactions, I think it's safe to assume that people are willing to pay up to a certain reasonable amount for that privacy. How much? I don't know.... but it's worth accounting the "market rate" for privacy. The challenge here, though, is that most people don't value their privacy *at all* - until their identity is stolen, or some such mess. Market-pricing privacy will get easier, but right now it's nearly impossible, and I daresay almost futile, IMHO. Among urgent issues facing the Dash ecosystem - this is a rising one, but not in the top 5 issues - probably top 10.

My $0.02.

The increase of the privatesend fee is yet another predecided branch of the structured methodology of the spies. They decided that privatesend should be very expensive, in order to force most of the people not use it. That way, the few people that will keep using privatesend, they will be easily identified. The plan of the spies is so obvious, that only a stupid cannot see it. But unfortunately we have too many stupid here.
What is my vote? PrivateSend fee should be zero or even negative, in order to incentivize many people to use it, and that way make the job of the spies harder.

My -$0.02.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Or "free" privacy from a privacy centric coin. People really like "free" even if it's not actually free, hence the market cap boost on privacy based coins.

 

[Elmo]

So if DASH goes up 10x to $7,500 private transactions will cost up to $60?

 

[goto1415]

While I think the idea behind mixing is clever and cool, the short comings of how PrivateSend works overall are glaringly obvioius. Below is a list of things (there may be more) I can think of that makes PrivateSend an unviable solution for most people to use and is probably the biggest reason people actually don't use PrivateSend.

Coin mixing is inefficient on many levels

• places an unnecessary burden on users having to mix coins before being able to make private transactions
  
• users incur fees to transact privately
• users incur higher PrivateSend fees as Dash price appreciates
• places an extra burden on masternodes to do the mixing
• places and unnecessary burden on Dash Core as there is an ongoing decision making process and administrative overhead required to adjust the fee structure based on price fluctuations
• relying on mixed denominations has caused problems for users previously where not enough mixed denominations were available to do a PrivateSend

People shouldn't have to pay for the priviledge of private transactions just because the system uses an inefficient mechanism to satify the need. Dash has done presentations touting that to be successful it must do things better than what the current fiat system offers - charging for the ability to transact privately is not an improvement on the existing system.

Most of these problems could be fixed by replacing the mixing mechanism of PrivateSend with a cryptographic solution like Zerocoin or zk-SNARKs. PIVX have managed to implement Zerocoin with a lot less resources than Dash. Dash core should be looking to remedy this before it becomes a bigger problem in the future.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

And it's not available on any mobile wallet.

And when it's available in Evolution, it will still be unavailable in all other mobile wallets. Why must Private Send be a wallet specific function?

 

[Antti Kaikkonen]

Privatesend collateral payment is also ~$0.8 (0.001 dash) now. I don't think it would much make sense to mix 0.001 denominations if the collateral payment stayed the same. And I guess lowering the collateral payment would make privatesend more vulnerable to sybil attacks...

 

[younglegend]

given the budget,

@UdjinM6 is arguably one of our most knowledgeable developers, so on the hard-core tech side I would defer to his correction... however... it seems reasonable to me to expect that if the constraint is the number of denominations for performance purposes, then the value of a "10" mixer would predictably diminish as the "dollar density" of each denomination increases. Basically - shifting denominations would likely happen naturally as users shift downward and "regress toward the mean" (mathematically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean).

It would be valuable, and probably necessary, to account for these downward shifts in density as the market values of the denominations are pressed upward. The Dash system/platform will need to react in a number of ways like this in order to accommodate the incoming value. Otherwise, we'll be another overpriced currency too expensive to transact.

OTOH: While mixing & PS transactions may be more costly than regular transactions, I think it's safe to assume that people are willing to pay up to a certain reasonable amount for that privacy. How much? I don't know.... but it's worth accounting the "market rate" for privacy. The challenge here, though, is that most people don't value their privacy *at all* - until their identity is stolen, or some such mess. Market-pricing privacy will get easier, but right now it's nearly impossible, and I daresay almost futile, IMHO. Among urgent issues facing the Dash ecosystem - this is a rising one, but not in the top 5 issues - probably top 10.

My $0.02.

Who says people doesn't value privacy? Dash being first privacy crypto makes dash a #1 private crypto in the market.

I'd love to make private transaction if it wasn't so expensive, also make instant payment all the time if the price is even cheaper.

Offering more choices makes DASH strong. Is it not DASH motto still is private effortless transaction?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

We all appreciate Core is working flat out on Evolution but please, we have people in HR so just give us the developers we need to make PS better. I'm sure the majority of MNOs would wholeheartedly welcome it.

 

[Elmo]

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Show me one line of Evolution code (YOU CAN'T!). Show me one DIP >001 (YOU CAN'T!). Show me one peer-reviewed whitepaper (YOU CAN'T!).

Despite over a year of lavishly funded supposed development, we don't even have a specification for Evolution, so you have zero factual basis on which to assert Core is "working flat out" on it.

The only thing Core is *DEMONSTRABLY* working flat out on is moving Dash Core Group and Dash Foundation assets into hidden tax havens where Duffield can enjoy spending them far away from the IRS, SEC, and FBI.

Why are you here?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

The only thing Core is *DEMONSTRABLY* working flat out on is moving Dash Core Group and Dash Foundation assets into hidden tax havens where Duffield can enjoy spending them far away from the IRS, SEC, and FBI.

Tax havens? - lol, how clueless you are. Crypto IS the tax haven. For you, me, Duffield, EVERYONE. Damn right that the IRS, SEC and FBI can, finally, no longer confiscate what inherently belongs to the people.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Nice deflection and derailing attempt. Now answer the question.

Where is the evidence for the claim that "Core is working flat out on Evolution?"

You don't need evidence, you think dash is shit anyway.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Another crummy attempt to derail the discussion by personalizing what should be an abstract, neutral, arms-length, and fact-based discourse.

Why do you so strenuously resist answering the simple question "Where is the evidence for the claim that Core is working flat out on Evolution?"

There is no "discussion" mate. You're a dickhead, through and through. Now fuck off.