too generous RC for 0 SP account?

[economicstudio]

I've just found that 0 SP account can do quite many things than before. (Maybe due to the decreasing Steem blockchain activity, so required RC seems dynamically adjusted.)

Of course, I'm against the idea of too strict RC for newbies. But 0 SP is a different case. Probably 1 comment (or even 0) with a couple of transfers (for real exit from Steemit after full powerdown) would be enough. Maybe only transfers should be allowed to prevent abusing with 0 SP accounts.

[Gandalf-the-Grey]

This 0 SP account is in fact an equivalent to 3 SP account (see adjustment)

[economicstudio]

Thanks! I see and that's why. Then that's exactly my point. It shouldn't be! :) Why not adjusting it so that 0 SP can do only a couple of transfers? It's 0 SP anyway. nobody can claim that it's too harsh. I saw many subaccounts playing drugwars with 0 SP, for instance. Eventually this can't be good for the chain nor the game.

[mvandeberg]

Prior to HF 20 the account creation fee was powered up in to the account. Now, the fee is burned, but the account is given an equivalent amount of base RCs as though they had received the SP. The math works out the same on how much an account can do, but this prevents the new account from powering down and walking away with some SP. This is also required for the entire claimed account system to work. The number of claimed account that can be created per day is votable by this witnesses. If we ever get to a point that we are allowing too much activity on the blockchain because of the subsidized RCs, then the witnesses can always vote to reduce the amount.

[economicstudio]

"The number of claimed account" is not so related to "the number of activities that each account can do"

ps. i feel like you tend to close issues too early even before people have a chance to think about it or even recognize it. I previously saw some posts that community's opinions even on GH are treated this way sometimes, which I didn't believe at that time, but that might be true, sadly.

[mvandeberg]

"The number of claimed account" is not so related to "the number of activities that each account can do"

This one is on me for not explaining my thought process entirely. This boils down to the purpose of the Resource Credit system, which is to limit the growth of the Steem blockchain by use of quotas. This is not to say, limit the growth of the user base, but the literal growth of the blockchain (in bytes), state size (in bytes), and reindex time (in seconds).

For an account created by burning a fee, the 3SP worth of RCs they get is 100% justified. 3 STEEM is removed from circulation and permanently tied to the new account. This is no different than you powering up 3 SP to get more RCs.

Where it gets a little tricky is for claimed accounts because the "free" RCs the claimed account gets doesn't come from anywhere. This is why we call claimed accounts subsidized accounts. The blockchain itself is subsidizing the creation fee and thus the base RCs the account gets.

You are right that "number of claimed accounts" and "number of activities that each account can do" are not related. However, we don't actually care about either of those numbers. What we care about is the total growth impact on the blockchain, which is equal to "number of claimed accounts" times "number of activities that each account can do".

Another way to analyze this is to look at how much claimed accounts impact the growth vs what rewards do. Witnesses have voted for ~797 accounts per day. That many accounts might not be created, but there is the potential to create that many a day through claimed accounts. We currently have an account creation fee of 3 STEEM, so there is ~2391 SP worth of subsidized RCs that could be added to accounts.

The reward fund is currently at 870,296 STEEM, averaging 124,328 STEEM per day. Claimed accounts are only 2% of what is allocated from rewards on a daily basis.

Perhaps you still think that 3SP should not allow a user to do as much as it currently does. The current cost is a function of the current usage and the quota. We have already defined what we thought would be acceptable max usage and have let usage decide the cost.

We carefully considered and constructed the current system to be as fair and safe as possible. I will reopen the issue to continue the discussion. What a 0 SP can do is a result of the inputs to the system, so if a 0 SP account can do too much, then what part of our system is not working?

[iamsmooth]

Another possibility is that witnesses should adjust the account fee down, as 3 SP may be overkill for a 'minimum' account.