Topic: Early Bitcoin Transaction Fees (Read 183 times)

It's good that you can see the amount it was transacted at that time. If you were to see it now, you would probably be sad or something right now. That's going to be a hard pill to swallow, but you paid the price for it. Definitely famous because of it.

high usage does not cause fee mania

the highest fee mania was caused by a couple idiots making only a couple transactions per block where everyone was left out of being accepted into the next block.. thus low usage caused people to pay more to try and get usage

also back in the era of the fee formulaes existence. the blocks were only 25% full.
yep you can actually check.. (average block size) . heck there was even a bug where when block finally reached 50% full in 2013 it hit a DB bug that caused a fork. so yea blocks were never full back then. they didnt even get to 0.5mb until 2013... have a nice day learning.. (something you fail at and yet block data can show what actually happened, unlike YOU)

so that was another practical reason not to need it. even though it would have been more useful now blocks are now more full (whether full due to large tx count or low txcount but bloated junk)..

There is no point indulging your delusions any further.  High usage causes fees to rise.  This is how it works.  Be a deranged sociopath all you like, doesn't change the facts.  Bitcoin does not work how you would like it to.  This is a -YOU- problem.  Stop blaming everyone else for the fact that you don't understand Bitcoin.  You've had it wrong from day one, over a decade ago.  I don't think anyone else in this entire community has spent as much time being wrong as you have.  Again, you are a moron.

doomad

here is the thing
back in the days when "priority" was a thing. it was a consensus thing because those were the days of using the bitcoin node software to mine. thus the miner was also the bitcoin node software. thus miners did comply to priority policy

it was only when stratum software and CG miner and other software took over the block template creation + mining (pool mining began instead of solo) the process did become a separation of what rules a node had vs what a pool could mess around with

this THEN became the reason to remove it because there become a diversity between what was followed or not

however even with all that said.. core played politics (with sipa the reigning leader back then) that rewrote alot of code .. sipa was the main instigator that wanted it removed the most, pretending "the community"(pretending all the other big contributors wanted it removed and saying that no miner even uses the priority any more.. ) wanted it removed

but guess what. luke JR a big contributor to core AND also a mining pool owner didnt want it removed and did use priority in his mining pool(yep luke was a core contributor and a mining pool manager)

here read their debate
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9601
over all sipa ignored lukes request and just removed it anyway.. ignoring that luke was a miner that wanted it to remain(debunking sipas claims about miners) and also ignoring contributors objections (debunking sipas claims about core contributors)
yep sipa as the main coder of core in that era over rules what miners actually wanted and over ruled contributors objections and just decided to be an authoritarian and remove things using ignorance

..
yet again i see you are trying to say that bitcoin never had strict rules and people never followed things and everything was always broken or had bypasses.. rather than noting how things actually changed over the years.. and yet again you dont want to talk about who caused what and when..

Clearly franky1 needs to do more research:  https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/54583/why-is-the-transaction-priority-removed

1.  It wasn't a consensus rule.
2.  Miners were ignoring it anyway.
3.  You are a complete moron and you understand nothing.

If you want to add completely redundant code to your client, you are free to do so.  The rest of us have more sense. 

nope it was actually $41 total worth of pizza.

Haha 😂
It's indeed very interesting to see that the 10,000 sent was altogether worth $100 at the time, so it means each of those pizzas cost $50 each, still a very expensive pizza 🍕 at that price though..

And also, 0.99 bitcoin spent as fee for the transaction was worth $0 at the time as well, and how exactly should feel knowing that that same 0.99 bitcoin is now worth $25,000+ whooping dollars 


Who owns a time machine please? I wanna go back to 2009 🙏🙏😁

the standard fee rate has not always been sats per byte
there was a min fee rate of 0.001 no matter the bytes used. so it never "always" started at 1sat.byte

also there was later introduced a fee formulae that had a score rating where the age of the coin and the amount spent rated at a score and if you had a good score you had priority witohut paying a fee. if you had a bad score you had to pay a fee to multiply the score to reach that score..

that fee formulae was later removed

it was only after the "core take over" that things changed again.

and for your information core did not do the miscounting of byte to make fees cheaper.. if you read the code its actually made the original formats(legacy) 4x more expensive. yep was a X4 not a /4

the measurement not actually sat/1kvb or plain 1kb.. the cludge of miscounting bytes is where legacy gets a x4 rating of weight units
yep when a block of pure legacy transactions, which only take up 1mb of REAL blockspace of REAL bytes stored in blockdata and hard drive. they are treated as 4mb of weight and given a fee price 4x more

have a nice day checking out block data to see segwit does not get a discount. but its that legacy that gets the premium.. there is a difference

fees have not become cheaper since 2016. they are actually more expensive as you have learned this year with blocks spending over $1 per tx and even upto $70 per tx.. yet the fees in 2023 have been the highest fee's ever paid in the whole history of bitcoin.. thanks to taproot

yep a exploit of taproot allowed fee mania to cause bloat and misuse of the network to make fees the highest fiat cost EVER.. so try not to pretend that taproot caused fees to be cheaper than history

and try to remember taproot was meant to be invented with the pretend promise of a new scripting standard of one signature length.. but again as we all know taproot actually allowed longer scripts.. and junk data be added.. not less

The standard fee rate has always been satoshis/byte (the Bitcoin Core client expresses this metric a bit weirdly as satoshis/KB but luckily it is an anomaly) until recently when Segwit addresses were introduced (in particular P2W[PKH/SH] outputs), the fee calculation changed to exclude some obsolete fields to make the fee cheaper, and this resulting metric was just named satoshis/vbyte. Which is what we use today except for legacy addresses.

Well... might be that some people in 2010 paid a fee of 0.001, but there was no need to pay any fee at all.

I just took a glance at my tx-history,
started using bitcoin in 2010, the first time I ever paid a fee was in 2016.

The year 2009, a time when Bitcoin was a baby, crawling its way into the world. My friend, transaction fees were like the Loch Ness Monster - there were rumors, but no concrete proof. At least not till the network became more populated.

Concerning the great Laszlo Hanyecz and his infamous pizza purchase, I can affirmatively state that there were no transaction fees involved. But look on the bright side, at least he didn't tip the pizza delivery guy in Bitcoin!

As for your claim about the maximum number of transactions per day being 100, that's a fine piece of misinformation. The actual number depends on the block size, which was originally 1MB, and could hold around 2000 to 4000 transactions. The daily limit thus can theoretically exceed several hundreds of thousands. I hope this insightful yet amusing message enlightens you on your quest for Bitcoin knowledge.

laszlo could make that transaction even without paying any transaction fee.

I just checked transactions included in blocks 56000-58000.
561 (non-coinbase) transactions were included in those blocks. 560 out of 561 transactions have been made with zero fee and laszlo's transaction was the only one paying fee.

There has always been a transaction fee for sending bitcoin including the bitcoin pizza payment made, what i just see and wish was to have the little part of the the experience whereby the bitcoin website like bitcointalk will be the only platforms through which bitcoin can be sent or received which means you will still have your bitcoin address generated once you created a bitcoin account here and other exchanges will only have to deal with alts.

This is where most of our problem is. Looking at bitcoin transaction fees in USD value instead of looking at the fee rate. The optimal fee rate varies, but you can choose any fee rate you want depending on how quick you want the transaction to confirm.

Laszlo could have used 1 sat/vB, but he instead chose to use 4,191 sat/vB over paying in transaction fees by 4191 time because in that particular block which contained only his transaction and the coinbase transaction.

I do, because this is a good example that in future the transaction fee of Bitcoin will never be the same as today, the higher the value of Bitcoin skyrockets the transaction fee will follow, many people don't know this, so sharing something like this will either get them prepared or make them think twice about Bitcoin, which is stupid, hating Bitcoin because of transaction fee is stupidity, you can't always have two things happening at the same time, Not a high value price on Bitcoin and less or cheaper transaction fee from Bitcoin.

Do you know that many crypto newbies screamed about high transaction fee from Bitcoin and Ethereum in last bull market? They don't understand that you can't have high price action and less transaction fee together, it's not possible.

You're taking me back to the prehistoric times of Bitcoin! Transaction fees? Pff, who needed 'em? It was a time of pioneers, sending digital currency into the unknown. As for the max transactions per day, I think it was more like, 'We're lucky if we get a handful of transactions today!' But hey, it laid the foundation for what we have now, so kudos to those early pizza buyers and their hunger for crypto!

Bitcoin was still struggling to get into the minds of the masses, so yes, the where transaction fees, majorly dependent on the platform you use, some do not charge, some charged but their charges where really low compared to what we're charged now.

Bitcoin transactions are on Bitcoin blockchain which is Proof of Work. Confirmations must be done by miners that only confirm your transaction if they see yours gives them good transaction fee.

Transaction fee was cheap in the past, if you compare it to nowadays. However, I don't think it was too expensive for early transactions when Bitcoin was something very new, vague in people minds and bitcoin price was very low.

In 2023, we can discuss about fee rate as satoshi/vbyte but what was discussed in 2010? I don't know but perhaps I will get back to check it.

I guess in the past, the standard fee rate for discussion would be bitcoin/ byte. That's insane but understandable. 

I think transaction fee would depend on the platform you use in order to transfer an amount. Also with Laszlo's case, I think it wasn't much of a fee given that it was more likely a p2p transaction and given that the market price before was still low. Until today, fees on decentralized exchanges is lower than our normal transaction fees with fiat and the only problem is just its adoption. No matter how we would want to pay in BTC, if the merchant does not accept such mode of payment, then it won't be as useful as it should be. Same reason I guess why people of this industry prefer using it as an asset more than a currency aside from profit potential but also with limitations on its usage.

I still think the transaction fee today is still cheaper in terms of BTC spent and not as converted value to USD.  1 Bitcoin is always equal to 1 Bitcoin so whether the fee today is much more expensive than the fee before can be answered by the amount of Bitcoin required to pay for fee and not the equivalent USD value of the transaction.

Besides during those times segwit and taproot are yet to be implemented, meaning the data isn't compressed yet for the minimum possible transaction fee.  This thought might result in an argument so to clear the issue I am only speaking about Bitcoin spent for transactions fee and not its equivalent value to fiat currency.