A month ago, NuShare holders were recommended to lower the transaction fee to zero. Cryptopia has re-enabled withdrawals for NSR, and US-NBT withdrawals continued to work while their NSR wallet was disabled. That suggests they did not have a problem with the US NuBit fee at 0.05 US-NBT/kB.
Several thousand NSR transactions have been made today, up from rarely reaching above one thousand. It’s most likely an attack. The impact of transaction flooding is enlarged blockchain and potential congestion for legitimate transactions.
I recommend shareholders set NuShare transaction fee to 1 NSR/kB. That will cause no problem at Alcurex for withdrawals below 85,000,000 NSR as they currently pay a static 1,600 NSR fee. I’m in contact with Cryptopia to confirm they handle the fee(s) dynamically, but I think we should act on this immediately.
I also recommend shareholders keep an eye on the amount of transactions for US NuBits. If they begin to increase in similar manner, set US NuBit transaction fee to 0.01 US-NBT/kB. We know that is handled by Bittrex, and has been by Cryptopia as well, but it’s worth avoiding interruptions in Cryptopia’s US-NBT flow.
The fee for NSR is now 1NSR/kb and as a result the flood of transactions has switched to transferring USNBT instead (indicating that it probably is an attack of sorts) .
As mentioned by @jooize in his post, it is now time to raise the tx fee for USNBT to 0.01. Could voting shareholders configure that in their clients please.
Reducing the fees to zero for more than a few days was I believe a silly thing to do anyway. Putting the network at risk unnecessary. Hope this is a lesson learnt. There are always ‘script kiddies’ wanting to have some ‘fun’. Hope we won’t providing them with more ‘fun’ any time soon.
Phoenix is not always exactly lightning-fast when it comes to answering inconvenient questions.
Allow me to put a quote here:
Once more you can see who is control of the network (at least minting share wise).
Lowering the fee was advertised nowhere and yet it happened.
I’m not taken by the wording “I had advised”.
It is of critical importance that exchanges keep working with us, and reducing friction for them was a trade-off against a slightly larger blockchain (which we can prune) and transaction congestion. At a time when most transactions probably include exchanges, doing so made sense.
I can confirm that Cryptopia withdrawals work with fees at 1 NSR/kB and 0.01 US-NBT/kB.
Good to hear that it is finally sorted. Is there anything to share we should know when adding new exchanges to prevent this from happening again? Or is it just lack of information they had?
I rushed that statement. We have not done it. What is required to do it? The idea being discarding all past transactions and initiating a new or continued chain with current balances. Nu already can create new coins at specified addresses.
Can that be achieved while keeping the network operating with outdated nodes?
Right, taking the mickey? Let’s clarify a few terms and agree on what is revenue first. Revenue is not profit. Revenue is income:
And yes, it may create liabilities and does create assets nobody is denying that.
Equity = Assets - Liabilities
Nu’s liabilities are all NuBits in circulation not owned by Nu.
Nu’s assets are the reserves we have built from the revenues from selling NuBits
A chunk of the assets have been used for operating costs reducing equity.
Besides that there is also owner’s equity. That are the revenues of the selling of NuShares.
Buybacks are reversing this process and are also reducing the equity.
The interesting part is that with buybacks the NSR price will eventually rise. The equation between the rise of NSR and the cost of buybacks is one to watch. As Nu owns a lot of NSR the net value of Nu’s assets is likely to increase.
And now more on-topic:
Profits can be made from transaction fees (Nubits and NuShares) basically putting the assets to intended use. The profits can be counted as assets in the model above. Operating costs reduce the assets.
Other ways to put assets to good use are loaning the reserves which should provide profits or investing in the client code (the Nu code is an asset) or other tools contributing to Nu.
If there is a lot of interest in discussing and exploring this topic around economics I might split the thread from here on as the thread was only about transactions fees (assets with less or no liabilities = profits). Please quote from trusted sources if you like to make a point, we all have strong opinions and views which is fine but let’s stick to the facts as accepted by sources like Wikipedia.
Maybe you should apply for the book-keeping role!
You won’t have a hard time registering profits from tx fees, as there are none of importance.
But you will be able to register how Nu bleeds out over time from operating costs and buying NSR high and selling them cheap.
@cybnate are you on the payroll by now just for that wonderful statement that selling Nubits “may create liabilities”? You are the perfect fit for a PR role in this company.
You will need to improve your selective quoting. Above statements from my post are I believe very clear what NuBits are. The first quote was more generic, not all revenues in an organisation necessarily create liabilities. That’s why I used ‘may’. However those subtleties are probably not properly recognised by you, hence my reply here.
You are the first to hear when that happens
I’m a shareholder, that provides me with enough drivers to contribute here every now and then.
Would be great to hire you to challenge my every word and quote. Keeps me sharp!
