Of the many kinds of Hubris in Bitcoin, one of them is the sense that we’re the first people on the Internet to deal with scarcity. There’s already a number of entrenched industries that have not only preceeded us, but which are still surpassing our efficiency in many ways. Chief amongst them is the gaming companies, all of which manage virtual currencies.
Thus far , they seem to have no interest in private blockchains, or even Bitcoin. Can you imagine how expensive it would be for World of Warcraft to export all its value onto the blockchain? Can you imagine how much risk it would incur for them to export their value onto… dogecoin? I believe these companies will absolutely embrace the blockchain… for disintermediation of Counterparty risk. That means settlement, and value export.
[quote=“brighton36, post:35, topic:249”]
PhantomPhreak’s point above is that even if we combined multiple outputs into a single transaction, you wouldn’t save much money.[/quote]
The problem is not only in the transaction cost (but still matters in case of sending a few transactions).
I will try to explain the issue using simplified scheme of our case:
User with multisig address 2_A_B_2 sends some coins to address C, also we need to take additional comission, which should be sent to address D. User has private key of A address, both transactions later will be manually signed with second private key by another person.
So, we have three problems here:
we cannot just create two transactions, because they will use common input, which will be spent after first transaction broadcasted
If one transaction is broadcasted and another one failed, we have a problem to “rollback” first transaction
We need an ability to track comissions by sends (kind of making cross link between two transactions).
Of course, there is a way to solve each of the problems, but all these solutions suck in comparison with the “native” way.
No.
This issue is about paying bitcoin fees from other address than source (what could be very useful too).
In our case commission is some amount of asset “coins”.
Well, this is my first post here on the public forum (I prefer the Chit Chat). I really do understand the pain-point that Adam is describing.
It reminds me of “Doctor, doctor - it hurts when I do that” to which the doctor responds: “So don’t do that”.
My whole point is that I have been involved for many years with services that do payouts only when a certain threshold has been reached. By doing that it is not included in evey weekly or monthly payout.
I suggest that you do a distribution once per month only for the accounts that have accrued a minimum of xxxxx number of tokens. This is pretty common with affiliate programs.
What would set you apart and be very cool is if you were to maintain those undistributed token balances in a LTB off-chain wallet that people can view.
If they want to receive their distribution sooner than what you have scheduled (based on time or minimum balance) then they should be free to export their private key and use it to do a sweep of that LTB wallet address into their address of choice that no longer requires any trust of the LTB Network.
If they opt to do a sweep prior to your scheduled distribution they are free to pay the BTC fees that are required to accomplish that.
WIN, win, win, win (darn, I lost count).
A decent example of the off-chain wallet is the simple one that was used by Koinify. You could probably just ask Tom Ding for direction on that.
IMHO, that would solve the majority of the challenges that you have expressed.