Pages:
Author

Topic: Are we at the point where we HAVE to pay tx fee? (Read 3870 times)

hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
It depends... since the size of the transaction isn't directly related to the amount transferred, the required fee can be quite small. Consider a 100 or 1000 BTC tx that has few inputs and will be accepted with a .01 BTC fee. That's only 0.01% or 0.001% fee, not too shabby.

At the moment, the transactions being queued for lack of fees ARE the ones with small amounts.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 252
It depends... since the size of the transaction isn't directly related to the amount transferred, the required fee can be quite small. Consider a 100 or 1000 BTC tx that has few inputs and will be accepted with a .01 BTC fee. That's only 0.01% or 0.001% fee, not too shabby.
hero member
Activity: 501
Merit: 500
The minimum transaction fee of 0.01 BTC does feel a tad high at the current exchange rates, though. I think fees should be more commonplace and the minimum fee should be smaller. I'd be happy to pay a 0.001 BTC fee to get my transaction processed quicker, but 0.01 is a lot of money.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
seems to me that the way it's set up now makes perfect sense.

the network has to stay strong - which means it must grow.  moore's law will take care of the hardware.

...and the eventual point will be to mine for transaction fees.  no?
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 2301
Chief Scientist
BTW, can someone explain in layman words where from priority is defined?

Priority is a function of how many bitcoins are involved in the transaction (more is higher priority), the size (in bytes) of the transaction (smaller is higher priority), and the age of the transaction's previous transactions (older is higher priority).

Your transaction is taking a long time because it involved only 0.14 BTC which you got from a transaction that happened earlier today.  If you were running bitcoin version 0.3.21, it would have required that you add a 0.01BTC fee to send it.

legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
This raises the importance of a resend feature.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Just to let everybody know - after roughly 24 hours transaction is still unconfirmed =)

http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/ - 1Hu65a4f13rWcK8fs2hmwq9FPEXQ6ZYBnu

BTW, can someone explain in layman words where from priority is defined?
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
What would happen if someone spammed the network with millions of transactions?

Reminds me of a similar question I'm mesmerizing about:

Who sets the price of transactions? The network or the miners?

If it's the miner, could an entity set up a massive supercomputer, mine most blocks and then set the transaction fees to 99%?

When you send a tx you can add a fee, it's in the options on the newest version. Miners can then put the tx in a block and take the fee, or not, up to them.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
Also, since the entire block chain must be downloaded to a local machine before that machine can acquire a bitcoin address and utilize a wallet, it seems that some sort of "practical maximum" of the block chain should be defined, or at least thought about.
...
What am I missing here?
Lightweight clients can utilize a wallet without having the block chain.

If it's the miner, could an entity set up a massive supercomputer, mine most blocks and then set the transaction fees to 99%?
Yes. Note that they won't make it 99% because then people will stop using Bitcoin, their price will collapse and the miner will not have any revenues.
This has been discussed before, and IMO it is a vulnerability that will need to be patched.
(But as others said the miner doesn't "set" the fee, they just exclude all transaction that don't give the fee they want.)
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
thank you. now this makes more sense =) So... we are at the point where we need to have higher divisibility of coins to make sure we can send 0.01 without paying 0.01 in fees.

It's my opinion that we passed this point some time ago.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
thank you. now this makes more sense =) So... we are at the point where we need to have higher divisibility of coins to make sure we can send 0.01 without paying 0.01 in fees.
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
Only 27kB of free transactions will be included by miners using the official client (only 4kB for low-priority transactions). Individual miners can change this policy (by changing the code). It would be valid for miners to fill the entire 1 MB with free transactions.

The point of this is to prevent the block size from growing too fast from transaction spam. It might be increased once client mode is implemented and the size of the block chain doesn't matter as much.
newbie
Activity: 33
Merit: 0
What would happen if someone spammed the network with millions of transactions?

Reminds me of a similar question I'm mesmerizing about:

Who sets the price of transactions? The network or the miners?

If it's the miner, could an entity set up a massive supercomputer, mine most blocks and then set the transaction fees to 99%?
The prices are not set, they are "decided" by the market composed of miners and people who need the miners to make their transactions. There is a limit of one MB of transaction data per block which has been arbitrarily decided for now. It may be increased or not in the future.
At least that is what I understood.

For the time being, if you go on blockexplorer.com, you will see that blocks don't often exceed 5KB. So there should be 995KB of transactions more still possible per 10 minutes. Hence, I have no idea why there are so many pending transactions. Maybe they are invalid?
legendary
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1452
sorry what does mean unconfirmed transactions, means that there are double payment or lost, i am new.
no it doesn't.

confirmations pretty much mean that it's "protected", because it's in a block.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
sorry what does mean unconfirmed transactions, means that there are double payment or lost, i am new.
newbie
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
What would happen if someone spammed the network with millions of transactions?

Reminds me of a similar question I'm mesmerizing about:

Who sets the price of transactions? The network or the miners?

If it's the miner, could an entity set up a massive supercomputer, mine most blocks and then set the transaction fees to 99%?
legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
HODL OR DIE
What would happen if someone spammed the network with millions of transactions?
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
The questions is - one block can contain 1k transactions, why last blocks contain only dozens of transactions when there is 600+ unconfirmed transactions in the queue?

Indeed. Shouldn't we just accept free transactions if there's leftover space in the block?
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
The questions is - one block can contain 1k transactions, why last blocks contain only dozens of transactions when there is 600+ unconfirmed transactions in the queue?
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 256
Thanks Garrett.

So increases in the difficulty level also increases the amount of time it takes to compute a block?  Why don't we compute blocks as quickly as possible, then use a lottery system to award the 50 BTC "prize" to the first hasher of a random block in a 10 minute time period?  Seems like we're just wasting computing power that could be put to better use...

Unless the goal is to artificially limit the number of transactions that can take place in 10 minutes, to force people to eventually pay transaction fees.

But if that's the goal, what happens when adoption of bitcoins is 100x what it is at now?  If there can still only be X # of transactions per block, and the difficulty adjusts itself to where only one block is computed every 10 minutes, how in the world will the system be able to handle an increase in usage?  Transaction fees would have to increase to the point of fewer people wanting to use the system, which would be the opposite of what we all want, right?

Difficulty only increases when we're finding blocks, on average, more than every 10 minutes. The 10 minute goal was just a best guess by Satoshi for how long it would take transactions to properly propagate, and to give people with slower connections a chance to help, and at the same time avoid chain splits.

Like was mentioned above, block size can be increased, it's only this small to avoid spam, etc. Already there has been an increase in the number of transactions lately, even with the pools now using sendmany rather than just send.

The blocks are created with the transactions because of the proof of work that the block is - it's hard to compute that stuff, look at how much computing power we're throwing at hashing out a sufficiently small number, and we get one every 7 minutes or so (difficulty is gonna go way up!). So if we just made a block every 10 minutes or every 10 seconds, there'd be no proof of work there, and double spending would be possible.
Pages:
Jump to: