Quote from: camosoul on July 10, 2014, 12:44:58 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on July 10, 2014, 12:42:18 AM

Quote from: camosoul on July 09, 2014, 11:01:37 PM

I have DRK fat stacks and I'm fine with the idea. But there is the point that it is meant to be integral. Why should I get better anon just because I can afford it? Well, duh. That answers itself. BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD IT. Same reason I'm buying a Tesla Model S and you're not. Fairness has not a damn thing to do with it.

But your point is still valid. I guess it really depends on how this fattens the blockchain. Those adding fat should pay a little more. And they should pay it to the people who have to host it and mix it, the MNs. But, the bottom line question is really not there... We know there is a disparity, but is it enough to care?

Is it enough fat to warrant charging more?

In my view, fat should always need a proportional price to pay to prevent bloat attacks. If someone wants to bloat the blockchain with zero cost or low cost, that's a problem. You need to penalize attackers who can add gigabytes of bloat for peanuts (in terms of cost).

I agree, but the socialists want to turn the argument backwards and make it a "No fair, he gets to buy more anon!" I get to buy more ammo, too! Come and take it!

But the way logic is chasing this discussion, I think any bloat would be negligible to the point that it doesn't matter. Oh, and another cool idea... If it were 10 deep, change could be issued at different depths... What a mess! No way anyone would ever trace that shit...

I imagine most of those supporting extra fees for the MasterNodes are MN owners or those with the resources available to setupone or more MNs. DRK is not some consumable good with apreciable craftsmanship of superior components. If DRK is to become widespread, its main purpose is to be used as money. A medium of exchange. I think we all know how easy is to copy code when it is open source and most would agree that this project won't be successful if it the DrakSend(+) source code doesn't become availble. In this case it could be copied and the lack of anonymity fees being touted as a feature of another coin. Most people do not need to pay extra to exhange cash or gold for other goods in exchange for more anonymity.

That said, I see where you are both coming from and I think having a fee for greater anonymity could be a good way of avoiding blockchain bloat. But not if the standard option is a sub-par anonymity solution (I'm not saying it will be) and you need to pay fees for a reasonable level of anonymity.

edit: substituted in reasonable for higher