Agreed on the "bagholding". There is no such thing as a "safe" asset to hold, there is only relativity-- in wealth managment. Some assets go up in price, others go down, and this includes assets which have cash-flows attached (like IBM or Apple equity shares) or those which do not (an original Picasso sitting protected in a person&#39;s attic). According to legend, Satoshi Nakamoto himself held more bags than anyone in the history of "crypto", he capitalized and financed several businesses using the sale of saved sats, and presumably still has benefitted from squatting on the future value of BitCoin. "He who has not sinned, cast thy first stone", and that&#39;s only if you believe savings are sinful. It&#39;s an interesting time period, the present, to study and interpret the "parable of the talents" indeed. Just because we CAN, via the code and/or protocol (which I consider differentt things, especially since BitCoin is not yet "written in stone" until Chronicle at the earliest), use ZSOs (zero-satoshi-outputs, or ZVOs per wiki.bitcoinsv.io ), doesn&#39;t mean we SHOULD. Regardless of how a Node likes to be paid (fiat or BSV), the transaction fee TYPICALLY comes out of transaction inputs total, does it not? It is not a UTXO output from a transaction, but a remainder which is aggregated with all the other mining fees in the block. When the block is published, accepted, stands for the obligatory time uncontested (100 blocks?), all the fees are finally paid to the Node/Miner in a single UTXO which emerges from the block itself-- along with the Coinbase transaction (block subsidy). For those of you HEAVY in mining details, how does a zero-fee transaction occur? Is that not something checked in the submitted transaction, thus if the default fee is not met the transaction can sit in the mempool unprocessed? In BSV I believe there will be a time-limit to mempool transactions sitting, such that if no miner includes the low-fee or no-fee transactions, they will be cancelled? So how is it set up in raw transactions if<a class="mention" href="/@weathersv">@weathersv</a> wants to pay a lower-than-default mining fee to<a class="mention" href="/@mempool">@mempool</a>? Does WeatherSV simply pay the normal default mining fees, and then Mempool pays them a discount? Or does WeatherSV on the sending-end lower the fee below default, and simply wait for Mempool to include the transactions anyway? Any detail here would be fruitful. Assuming it is the latter, then 0-satoshi inputs TOTAL can be sent to the network, and will be processed, and the below-default fees can be paid in FIAT to the Node which agrees via an SLA. <a href='https://www.slictionary.com/testit/sla/2b521b6d3752b84bb7e71f188721039cadcd7e1d81dd717a22d577c00e02bfa5'>https://www.slictionary.com/testit/sla/2b521b6d3752b84bb7e71f188721039cadcd7e1d81dd717a22d577c00e02bfa5</a> Coder-detail: What in the raw transaction identifies that the sender is changing the default transaction fee? I&#39;ll take it as a look-up unless someone provides a screen-shot of the code (or JSON). It is my assumption, since I didn&#39;t "bitcoin" in the early days, that before transactions fees became a thing, most all transactions were free. Will have to put on my list, a study of the history of the first transaction fees. And by free, I mean no dust limit and no Nodes refusing ANY transactions whatsoever. Thus back then, a DOS attack was possible (but not probable as discussed in #DITR episode 2 "...Optimal price to pay for btc"). In fact, what prevents a DOS attack NOW is simply the default setting for transaction fees (0.5 sat/Byte if not mistaken). What prevents DOS from causing mempool congestion in the future, and correct me if I&#39;m wrong, is the proposal to allow mempool clearing (after about 2 weeks? working from memory here). My concern about ZSO still stands. While it might be POSSIBLE; I consider it poor practice. It also begs the question which remains un-answered by those intending on releasing Node software of the future--- how will storage price marketplace be done, as it&#39;s readily apparent it needs to be separate from transaction (fees) pricing? Unless I&#39;m missing something of course. I would point to a very poignant mention by Craig of the value of BitCoin in the "first paragraph" episode of<a class="mention" href="/@ryanxcharles">@ryanxcharles</a> ToB, in which he listed TWO things: 1. Information stored on the immmutable ledger 2. Faster speed of transactions In this discussion, myself and<a class="mention" href="/@attila">@attila</a> refer mainly to "1" above, and those not concerned with ZSOs refer to "2"? That&#39;s a question. Regardless of the answers to any of these questions, I would consider ZSOs a threat to the entire system, until substantiated otherwise. I fully understand transactions are great for the system, but the majority of those economics goes to the Node companies themselves, not to the value of BSV. the main argument from the other side seems to be: So long as customers of Nodes pay fees to go hand in hand with ZSO payloads, all is well. Why is ok for BSV&#39;s value itself? The argument is: If fees and usage of the BSV network continues upwards, more reserve satoshis will be needed to be held in wallets, thus taking up space in the 2.1 quadrillion sat bounds. But this isn&#39;t necessarily right, as pointed out above, fees can be paid in fiat. So NOW why hold sats at all? 0-sat-token is sent to a Node from a customer. No fee is sent with the token above. Customer pays Node privately via USD channels for accumulate fees for the month. So where are sats needed for this system? If we think this way, 10,000 small unsophisticated businesses using BSV and paying fees in satoshis is FAR more valuable than a giant corporation standardizing on BSV. SLictionary could be a better standard bearer for the BSV network&#39;s health, than onboarding the US Federal Reserve and 100% of it&#39;s paper-electronic "funny-money"-- all 700 trillion (and rising) pennies-worth would be located in zero-sat tokens, fees paid with electronic fiat. This is posted for open debate, happy to learn.