Pages:
Author

Topic: All The Fees - page 3. (Read 6959 times)

hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
165YUuQUWhBz3d27iXKxRiazQnjEtJNG9g
January 29, 2012, 11:48:18 AM
#46
The purpose is to protect against double-spend attacks.  Do you know a better way?
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003
January 29, 2012, 11:40:09 AM
#45
The developers have acknowledged that fee size determination in Bitcoin is broken. It could work though, the infrastructure is there, but we need a way to figure out how to communicate fee size between payers and miners.
The reason why I love bitcoin is the lack of fees!  I now do most of my transactions fee-less.  I am buying and selling directly with others and have far less in the way of BTC-USD need.  When it happens it is 25 cents Dwolla and .5 % exchange fees, which is pretty low when you do $300 worth. 
Don't get too attached to that. Fees will have to be introduced at some point (they already are in some cases). Mining rigs and the electricity they consume is not free.

The amount of energy consumed grows to match the price of bitcoins. Energy is basically the margin cost of mining, and bitcoins is the revenue. Miners will start buying more cards to mine more when the payout is higher, eventually pushing them to an equilibrium where everyone starts complaining that it is not profitable any more.

If the revenue were to drop to 1BTC per block, miners would start unplugging their machines to cut costs, and the difficulty would drop to match this change. Once you win a block, the cost to add a transaction is nearly nil, and to ignore low value transactions will mean that the next miner will be able to take them and pocket them.

Keep in mind that more's law also applies to miners, and 2 years from now all that mining equipment will be obsolete, so unless miners keep buying equipment, they will be replace by a new set of miners who will get twice the hash rate at half the cost (energy consumption probably won't drop).

Unless some miners get 50% of the hashing power (or some cartel forms), market laws will apply, and the cost to add a transaction will be the limit to the actual required fee. All that power consumption and fancy graphics cards will end up being sunk cost at the point of transaction recording, and thus be irrelevant.

Exactly, the whole system is set up to perpetually waste vast amounts of money for no purpose. Brilliant.
hero member
Activity: 533
Merit: 501
January 29, 2012, 10:46:02 AM
#44
The developers have acknowledged that fee size determination in Bitcoin is broken. It could work though, the infrastructure is there, but we need a way to figure out how to communicate fee size between payers and miners.
The reason why I love bitcoin is the lack of fees!  I now do most of my transactions fee-less.  I am buying and selling directly with others and have far less in the way of BTC-USD need.  When it happens it is 25 cents Dwolla and .5 % exchange fees, which is pretty low when you do $300 worth. 
Don't get too attached to that. Fees will have to be introduced at some point (they already are in some cases). Mining rigs and the electricity they consume is not free.

The amount of energy consumed grows to match the price of bitcoins. Energy is basically the margin cost of mining, and bitcoins is the revenue. Miners will start buying more cards to mine more when the payout is higher, eventually pushing them to an equilibrium where everyone starts complaining that it is not profitable any more.

If the revenue were to drop to 1BTC per block, miners would start unplugging their machines to cut costs, and the difficulty would drop to match this change. Once you win a block, the cost to add a transaction is nearly nil, and to ignore low value transactions will mean that the next miner will be able to take them and pocket them.

Keep in mind that more's law also applies to miners, and 2 years from now all that mining equipment will be obsolete, so unless miners keep buying equipment, they will be replace by a new set of miners who will get twice the hash rate at half the cost (energy consumption probably won't drop).

Unless some miners get 50% of the hashing power (or some cartel forms), market laws will apply, and the cost to add a transaction will be the limit to the actual required fee. All that power consumption and fancy graphics cards will end up being sunk cost at the point of transaction recording, and thus be irrelevant.
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1008
January 29, 2012, 09:11:26 AM
#43
The developers have acknowledged that fee size determination in Bitcoin is broken. It could work though, the infrastructure is there, but we need a way to figure out how to communicate fee size between payers and miners.
The reason why I love bitcoin is the lack of fees!  I now do most of my transactions fee-less.  I am buying and selling directly with others and have far less in the way of BTC-USD need.  When it happens it is 25 cents Dwolla and .5 % exchange fees, which is pretty low when you do $300 worth. 
Don't get too attached to that. Fees will have to be introduced at some point (they already are in some cases). Mining rigs and the electricity they consume is not free.
full member
Activity: 203
Merit: 100
January 28, 2012, 04:33:35 PM
#42
Quote
The banks are evil
Yeah, very evil, they have given you the ability to use a card online at all, to pay over the internet, to have nice control over your money and not having to keep all the cash in your house. They also have given a lot of businesses a chance to grow and make progress, by giving loans to them. Very, very evil indeed.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
165YUuQUWhBz3d27iXKxRiazQnjEtJNG9g
January 28, 2012, 03:34:13 PM
#41
When you use it online it's run as a credit card with the usual credit card fees (2% or so).
legendary
Activity: 1868
Merit: 1023
January 28, 2012, 03:26:29 PM
#40
I use a debit card online. 

I've always thought that merchants only had to pay a minor fee (around 25 cents) on these transactions. But maybe I am wrong?  I know I'm not giving them my PIN.  So maybe it is getting treated as a credit card. If so, that is unfortunate.  The banks are evil!

full member
Activity: 203
Merit: 100
January 28, 2012, 02:50:50 PM
#39
To be clear, exchanging any currency to any other currency is not going to be free anyway. Forex has fees, you have to insert and withdraw your money somehow, you have to pay your bank to have your account, it is going to cost something anyway.

Why must it be different with bitcoins?
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
January 28, 2012, 01:46:33 PM
#38
bansky rulz
0 confirmations is evil
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
January 28, 2012, 01:44:30 PM
#37
Indeed they are calculated into the cost of running the business, but I don't see them. I prefer my fees to be paid by the seller too.

This allows me to always see the actual prize I have to pay for a product, which is all I am interested in.

Mike Hearn has suggested that in the future people may accept 0 fee 0 confirm tx for reasonable amounts and only when they total something significant attach a fee which cannot be claimed until all the dependencies are also confirmed. This kind of lets the receiver pay.

But really we're talking about occasional tiny fees right now, it doesn't seem like a problem.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 28, 2012, 12:27:52 PM
#36
High (implicit) txn fees reflect a combination of a marketing gimmick (rapid initial currency generation) and a poor cryptocurrency design choice (aka proof-of-work). A new cryptocurrency would need to be designed from scratch to change this. No one cares.
And no one agrees.

Your PhD is in?


I have a Postdoc in ignore.

Lolz
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
January 28, 2012, 11:18:54 AM
#35
High (implicit) txn fees reflect a combination of a marketing gimmick (rapid initial currency generation) and a poor cryptocurrency design choice (aka proof-of-work). A new cryptocurrency would need to be designed from scratch to change this. No one cares.
And no one agrees.

Your PhD is in?

I have a Postdoc in ignore.
hero member
Activity: 740
Merit: 500
Hello world!
January 28, 2012, 11:15:31 AM
#34
I think the fees are too high. I buy everything with cash, a debit card (fee is around 25 cents in the US I think), or a check.

How do you use cash online?  I would stick it in the CD drive but most computers do not have them now.

Visa. No fees for me. May be for seller tho.

Visa? Yes fees for you! It is indeed for the seller, but how do you think they pay those fees? Correct, they use the money they charge you. So while you aren't directly paying fees, you are indirectly paying fees. If there weren't any fees with Visa, the products would be less expensive.

Indeed they are calculated into the cost of running the business, but I don't see them. I prefer my fees to be paid by the seller too.

This allows me to always see the actual prize I have to pay for a product, which is all I am interested in.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003
January 28, 2012, 11:10:11 AM
#33
link to suggestions?
or better yet put them all in a pdf or something, like satoshi did.

Thanks for your expression of curiosity. I will work on a pdf outlining core ideas.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
January 28, 2012, 11:05:41 AM
#32
link to suggestions?
or better yet put them all in a pdf or something, like satoshi did.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003
January 28, 2012, 11:00:35 AM
#31
High (implicit) txn fees reflect a combination of a marketing gimmick (rapid initial currency generation) and a poor cryptocurrency design choice (aka proof-of-work). A new cryptocurrency would need to be designed from scratch to change this. No one cares.


you seem to care. suggest something useful
and what is your PhD is in? can you link some articles you published?
I have (how else would I know whether anyone else cares?). Economics. Would you associate your public persona with this cesspool?
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
January 28, 2012, 10:54:32 AM
#30
High (implicit) txn fees reflect a combination of a marketing gimmick (rapid initial currency generation) and a poor cryptocurrency design choice (aka proof-of-work). A new cryptocurrency would need to be designed from scratch to change this. No one cares.


you seem to care. suggest something useful
and what is your PhD is in? can you link some articles you published?
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Bitbuy
January 28, 2012, 10:49:08 AM
#29
I think the fees are too high. I buy everything with cash, a debit card (fee is around 25 cents in the US I think), or a check.

How do you use cash online?  I would stick it in the CD drive but most computers do not have them now.

Visa. No fees for me. May be for seller tho.

Visa? Yes fees for you! It is indeed for the seller, but how do you think they pay those fees? Correct, they use the money they charge you. So while you aren't directly paying fees, you are indirectly paying fees. If there weren't any fees with Visa, the products would be less expensive.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003
January 28, 2012, 10:47:17 AM
#28
High (implicit) txn fees reflect a combination of a marketing gimmick (rapid initial currency generation) and a poor cryptocurrency design choice (aka proof-of-work). A new cryptocurrency would need to be designed from scratch to change this. No one cares.
And no one agrees.

Your PhD is in?
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
January 28, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
#27
High (implicit) txn fees reflect a combination of a marketing gimmick (rapid initial currency generation) and a poor cryptocurrency design choice (aka proof-of-work). A new cryptocurrency would need to be designed from scratch to change this. No one cares.
And no one agrees.
Pages:
Jump to: