Topic: Increase the minimum send amount to 54600 satoshi? (Read 1176 times)

For small payments this is where the lightning network or even Litecoin would be good for. I have switched to LTC with a couple of my clients because of the TX fee problem in BTC, as we transact across borders we use cryptocurrency heavily!

In some cases, it may be wise to increase the tx fee (or increase one of the output sizes, if possible) instead of sending excess btc to a change address, as the cost of spending the input from that change address (in addition to the cost of storing and securing the private key to that change address, and the "cost" of potentially decreased privacy as a result of using that change address) may exceed the value of the input.

However 400actforsale's proposal is to implement a minimum output amount of 0.000546 btc, which is over 5x (what used to be) the standard minimum tx fee for transactions that do (didn't) qualify for 0 tx fees (to get confirmed by most pools). As a result of this, I believe the proposed minimum output is too large, however I might be able to support a higher minimum output size from what we have currently.

There are certain benefits, risks and costs to being in a situation in which you control the private keys of your bitcoins, verses storing your bitcoins at a service that has control over your private keys. One cost of storing, securing and backing up your private keys is that you are unable to invest your coins in the bankroll of a gambling site, or lend them on bitfinex, while a benefit is that the chances of your coins being stolen as part of a large hack/theft are much lower. When discussing faucet payout-type sized inputs, it will probably be advantageous to let a reputable service to maintain custody of your coins, as you will not need to deal with the high cost of spending many small inputs, especially if such service does not charge you a fee for holding your coins for you. (this ignores the fact that dealing with faucets is probably not a good use of your time, as you will end up making well under minimum wadge for even developing countries).

7. That was confirmed in 20 hours while I expect it to confirm within 2 days (that was a payment to an exchange, and by adding those cents a cashout will not be practical as the fees are too high).

8. That was the Bitcoin Wallet for Android. I'm using other android wallets now, as that wallet ran really slow and can't even be started in my old phone...

And yes, I was always crying about such high fees for my transactions originated from my faucet payouts. But I'll have to accept them as Bitcoin is primarily used for larger transactions. Even PayPal charges a high fee for a low volume transaction (I have been charged $0.52 for a $5 transaction!).

9. The current dogecoin market spread is about 4%, which would be another 0.04 cents of cost for the 1 cent transaction.

10. 11.

If your transaction size is 200bytes and you paid 1000 satoshi, probably in a few days.

Depends on the client really. Unfortunately, certain wallet clients do not care and just use the remaining as change.

But if I were to enforce the 54600 satoshi rule, everyone would be crying about how the wallet client used ~34600 satoshi as a fee while I am only trying to send $4.
Acceptance rate. If I were to be wanting to use micro transactions, sure I can use Dogecoin or some other coin. But the acceptance rate of Dogecoin is so low and I have to undergo the hassle to converting Bitcoin to Dogecoin. Dogecoin is extremely volatile for that matter.
Neither do I, but that helps with faucet saving the transaction fees, user saving the transaction fee and ultimately, lower size occupied on the actual chain
Definitely. I have to use my same old argument. The block size increase wouldn't affect most of the user since most of them:
1. Uses SPV client.
2. Have plenty of bandwidth
3. Have plenty of space.
4. Can enable pruning.

Blockchain spam can be caused by a variety of things. Faucet is only a small portion of that. This solution wouldn't be the most practical one.

1. Yeah so that's why I can send a tx with 1k satoshi as fee and confirmed in 20 hours...

2. That's 1/84 of the whole blockchain's bandwidth from a SINGLE faucet...

3. Ok I'll stop argue on that... The extra input will make the tx ~200 bytes bigger...

4. Then why don't them pay those satoshi as fees... My first transaction made ever consisted 1301xx satoshi inputs and a single 100000 satoshi output. The standard transaction fee was 30000 but it ended up charging me the extra 1xx satoshi without changing to me

5. Then that's why there're altcoins with lower transaction fees. You may send a cent in the dogecoin network paying only 0.025 cent as fee.

6. I don't trust those services actually, because I can't have control to the keys... That's why I prefer direct payment...

The ultimate solution could be increasing the block size, however it is not recommended as it will increase the required bandwidth of nodes and the storage space used by the blockchain.

No such thing as minimum fee but the default relay fee is 0.00005BTC/KB.
Not an issue. We get spams that is much bigger than that. If the payment is made every week, the transactions would only occupy a total of 2/168MB. The gambling sites produces spam on a much bigger scale.
Wouldn't you be introducing spam instead?
Possible but it isn't that important to reduce the spam from these kind of transactions. Actually, I had people who had change of less than 2730 satoshis and I had to walk them through to solve this. It can happen more if its 54600 satoshis.

The reason for the dust limit to be lowered was because of the increasing price. It would be quite dumb if you aren't allowed to send 0.5USD across the network. Segwit would likely help with the block and transaction size and potentially reducing the impact of this issue.

Aren't most faucet sending payments through online wallets like Xapo?

Well isn't the minimum fee 0.0001/KB Thanks for your information on this part, though.
Maybe not, but the whole blockchain will be finally spammed by 2MB worth of these transactions (every week) and stored into all computers with full node indefinitely.
Even 54600 satoshi worths only ~0.5 USD now. They may use another input, pay a slightly less fee (if the change amount would be close to 54600 satoshi), or give the change as fee too. In realistic bitcoin transactions, a change of such low amount would occur rarely.

By default, with a minimum relay fee of 0.00005BTC/KB, the dust is defined as 2730 satoshi. The dust limit is relative to a node's minimum relay fee and the formula is defined here[1]. If a transaction pays a decent fee but has an output that has less than 2730 satoshi, it won't be relayed by the nodes with this kind of configuration.
It isn't an issue. Is everyone going to spend it at the same time?
The withdrawal threshold for most faucet sites is actually quite big enough. Theres a huge problem with increasing the minimum output size to that amount. In a normal transaction, there is likely to be change sent to the change address. Many a times, the change output is very low. Penalising them wouldn't make sense.
[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e8cfe1ee2d01c493b758a67ad14707dca15792ea/src/primitives/transaction.h#L166

So currently the minimum send amount (to prevent spam) is 5430 or 5460 satoshi (I don't know which is true), while transactions involving outputs lower than that will be required to pay a higher fee, or aren't even allowed to send.

So earlier this week I've got my faucet payout, and realized that the few payout transactions already taken up more than 300KB of a block (more than 10000 outputs), and to spend them, another 2MB of data is needed, which will fill 2 full blocks and making the chain unusable for 20 minutes!

Increasing such minimum output thershold will help decreasing such spams caused by faucet outputs (and they'll need a higher payment thershold, which will spam the blockchain for less), and increasing the space for other transactions within that 1MB block size limit. If a non-standard transaction occurred with outputs less than that amount, then an extra miner fee of at least 54600 satoshi per such output would be required, and full clients should reject transaction not meeting that thershold.

What do you think?