Topic: Increase minimum TXfee (Read 171 times)
I think adding a minimum TXfee will only make us sometimes disappointed because it doesn't match the transaction process, so it's better to keep using normal fees and after that wait until the money you send is reached because usually on some platforms only requires 1 confirmation of money to be sent immediately although no one knows how long the process will take because when the transaction is busy it will take longer.
One of the main reasons why Bitcoin was born was to eliminate mediators or third parties such as financial institutions in a transaction between two parties which could lead to an increase in the transaction cost. A perfect example are world remittance services like Western Union. Their fees are very ridiculous. Now by suggesting a minimum Tx fee which can easily skyrocket should transactions flood the mempool, you are going against the main reason Bitcoin should be a better alternative to centralized financial institutions and payment services.
Sometimes I use services like Bitrefill to make small payments. Imagine having to pay a transaction fee of 0.0002 BTC to spend 0.00002 BTC just because there is a certain minimum tx fee. Don't you think people would just abandon Bitcoin instead of adopting its usage?
Sometimes I use services like Bitrefill to make small payments. Imagine having to pay a transaction fee of 0.0002 BTC to spend 0.00002 BTC just because there is a certain minimum tx fee. Don't you think people would just abandon Bitcoin instead of adopting its usage?
I do not think that the idea of "Increase minimum TXfee" for Bitcoin transactions will be a welcome option for many bitcoin fans, because many people want to set different fees and want to control the fees themselves and set a minimum fee that will make them forced to set the minimum fees or slightly higher.
Also, what about small transactions that some people sometimes need in some sites, I mean what if the fees value are higher than the bitcoin value that you want to send? I guess nobody would be happy with that!
Also, what about small transactions that some people sometimes need in some sites, I mean what if the fees value are higher than the bitcoin value that you want to send? I guess nobody would be happy with that!
this would reduce the size of the mempools, and make it easier to run a node, and save space on the blockchain. It could be done like a difficulty adjustment where the minimum fee increases if the average block is >90% full, and decreases otherwise.
I definitely prefer leaving fees purely up to the market. Let users decide based on their time preference. If someone is willing to wait days, weeks, months (if need be) for a 1 satoshi per byte transaction to confirm, why take that away from them? Fees are already naturally rising as a function of demand and adoption.
Full blocks are the normal state of the network, so this is just a way of arbitrarily increasing fees at every difficulty adjustment. I also don't think this would really achieve the goals you mention.
Fully agree.
I think I am one of those examples.
Most of my transactions now are not at rush so I dont really need to pay more.
By changing something in the system could make it worse.
We will need to adapt by it again and then it might runover some businesses that are doing fine with how it is now.
this would reduce the size of the mempools, and make it easier to run a node, and save space on the blockchain. It could be done like a difficulty adjustment where the minimum fee increases if the average block is >90% full, and decreases otherwise.
You are supposing there are a lot of people spamming useless transactions of 1 sat/byte? Transactions which would not be made if the fee were 3 sat/byte?
I don't think so.
You are basically penalizing honest users, like me, who like to do 1 sat/byte transactions. Whoever is attacking the network would attack at 3 sat/byte as well.
I don't think this would have the impact that you imagined, and this kind of interventions in the fee market will probably do more harm than good in long term. There is a delicate balance between fees, transactions, miners, etc.
this would reduce the size of the mempools, and make it easier to run a node, and save space on the blockchain. It could be done like a difficulty adjustment where the minimum fee increases if the average block is >90% full, and decreases otherwise.
I definitely prefer leaving fees purely up to the market. Let users decide based on their time preference. If someone is willing to wait days, weeks, months (if need be) for a 1 satoshi per byte transaction to confirm, why take that away from them? Fees are already naturally rising as a function of demand and adoption.
Full blocks are the normal state of the network, so this is just a way of arbitrarily increasing fees at every difficulty adjustment. I also don't think this would really achieve the goals you mention.
this would reduce the size of the mempools, and make it easier to run a node, and save space on the blockchain. It could be done like a difficulty adjustment where the minimum fee increases if the average block is >90% full, and decreases otherwise.
well it is 1 sat per byte or around 0.00000227 btc IIRC
So do we make it 3 sat per byte or around 0.00000881 at the lowest?
Lets say we do and btc becomes 100k fee of 0.00000881 x 100,000 = 88 cents minimum
I think the idea is stop gap at best.
this would reduce the size of the mempools, and make it easier to run a node, and save space on the blockchain. It could be done like a difficulty adjustment where the minimum fee increases if the average block is >90% full, and decreases otherwise.
Jump to: