pull down to refresh
101 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 10h \ parent \ on: 📣 Community Feedback Requested: Predyx Fee Structure oracle
Okay, I get that! And thanks for letting me be honest with you!
But do your SN posts have to be formal?
I don't know how others feel, because nobody else mentioned this issue, but I like your replies a lot more because then I actually feel like a human is talking to me. Is it not possible to announce something like you reply?
You mentioned in #1008195 that the real reason was an attacker that was exploiting or trying to exploit you via double sells. Since you introduced fees because of that reason, I assumed he was successful? But you also mentioned that you fixed it in the software without fees? 🤔
Anyway, I thought you had issues with concurrent transactions. This seems to be a good read.
But do your SN posts have to be formal?
Thanks for breaking my fear - I think its same like public speaking fear. (In my mind I always thought from my own limitations) I'm going give writing myself a try w/o use of AI. Lets see how feels.
You mentioned in #1008195 that the real reason was an attacker that was exploiting or trying to exploit you via double sells. Since you introduced fees because of that reason, I assumed he was successful? But you also mentioned that you fixed it in the software without fees? 🤔
The double-spend or parallel attack issues have been fixed.
But in this (the current spam events) case the spammer/attacker is draining us with network fees. We do not charge any fees on sell to LNAddress directly. However there is a network fees that we have to pay everytime the user sells to LNAddress directly. If he sells to internal Predyx/lnbits wallet then this is not a problem, as the internal wallet transfers don't go through the network but just database updates (its a feature of lnbits) - I hope I was able to explain the above issue clearly.
Anyway, I thought you had issues with concurrent transactions. This seems to be a good read.
Thanks for sharing the link, will give it a read.
reply
However there is a network fees that we have to pay everytime the user sells to LNAddress directly.
Oh, right, you should definitely charge users for network fees and not pay them out of your own pocket, else you're opening yourself up to fee siphoning attacks.
If that's the reason for the fees on selling, wouldn't charging them for network fees be the fix you're actually looking for? If you're still paying for network fees out of your own pocket, this doesn't actually fix fee siphoning.
reply
Thanks for "fee siphoning attack" link - I'm hearing it for the first time. Will implement the network fees for LNAddress payouts.
Also another motivation for adding the fees are to incentivize the market creators. We have plans to allow user created markets in few weeks. As you may already know every market created in LMSR must be subsidized with liquidity. The between 33% - 66% of this liquidity gets lost as the market comes to conclusion based on how thinly the market is traded. And if the market moves only in one direction, then almost all of the liquidity is lost.
Wanted to be prepared for the user created markets - by adding fees and fine tuning it to optimal level so that the user is incentivized to create markets.
Next we also wanted to get ready to allow 3rd party to provide liquidity with an incentive to earn fees. There will be no motivation to provide any liquidity without the potential to earn some fees.
reply
It seems like the optimal fee structure will have a fixed component to cover the fixed transactions costs and an exit fee that’s proportional to the wager to mitigate attacks.
reply
Thanks for "fee siphoning attack" link - I'm hearing it for the first time. Will implement the network fees for LNAddress payouts.
Also created a post about it: #1008424
As you may already know every market created in LMSR must be subsidized with liquidity. The between 33% - 66% of this liquidity gets lost as the market comes to conclusion based on how thinly the market is traded. And if the market moves only in one direction, then almost all of the liquidity is lost.
Yes, I remember talking about this with @kr when I was still working on delphi.market!
Wanted to be prepared for the user created markets - by adding fees and fine tuning it to optimal level so that the user is incentivized to create markets.Next we also wanted to get ready to allow 3rd party to provide liquidity with an incentive to earn fees. There will be no motivation to provide any liquidity without the potential to earn some fees.
Ok, makes sense
reply