in the beginning the spam problem in bitocoin was solved by using the coin age destroyed in the transaction as priority of the transaction.
whats is the reason to implement it like that? looks little bit strange to me. what is the benefit of that compared to just using the normal fee / coin age priority like in bitcoin?
my suggestion would be just to let the fee optional and use the destruction of coin age by default as priority, just like bitcoin did it. like in bitcoin the protocol should not define if fees are needed or not, but miners could define it (soft fork)
if the UD is incentive enough in the longer run to have enough validating nodes only time will show,
what was nice with mining in bitcoin was, that you could just start the computer mining in the beginning and see the coins coming in. what still is nice in mining is, that it helps to give liquidity to the market, because miners have an incentive to sell some part of their mined coins to cover the power costs.
by the way, we should think also about how many transactions per time we want to allow. I for my part dont want to end up in an situation where the hole community splits, because of an set spam protection limit of 1MB like in Bitcoin.
For example Ethereum uses an algorithm that allows an single block to be at max 20% bigger as an average block.
summary:
- as long as we can only process a limited amount of transactions per time, we need some kind of spam protection
- using the coin age as transaction priority and allowing optional transaction fees could solve the spam problem
- if UD is enough incentive to run verifying nodes only time will show, still it would be nice at least to have some small incentive for running an verifying node.
- We should think about using an dynamic algorithm like Ethereum has that limits the size of an single block to protect against spam