Topic: Is it possible sending BTC without a transaction fee? - page 4. (Read 23880 times)

I think there must be transaction fees, however small because this is income in the business. If it's too big it will be very burdensome for users of bitcoin, and can result in high transaction costs. It is not competitive.
So in my opinion there must still be a transaction fee, but within a reasonable limit it means that it must be below the fee that the bank expects, because bitcoin transactions are peer to peer.

Yeah, that's impossible all transaction have charges no one is able to make it free, specially in cryptocurrency. The transactions fee is really important they use it to pay for miners, tax and other expenses.

Not unless you’re a senior citizen, you can ask for some discount but in cryptoworld, transaction fees is everything. Honestly, there are some new exchange site who started with transaction free but in the long run they make a new rules that they will going to start collecting fees, so this mean at the end of the day, you still need to pay the fees.

it is impossible to send transactions without any fees, but you can make it lower, the lower fees you pay, the slower transaction you will get

On the Blockchain Bitcoin , transaction fees are determined by free market forces. Free market forces mean that anyone is free to set their own transaction fees and send transactions. This is good, but it also involves disadvantages when the space is small. Where the Bitcoin blocks are only as large as 1 MB, which means they do not absorb a lot of transactions in total. On average, Bitcoin transactions are 230-250 bytes in size, which means that the 1MB mass can accommodate only 4194 to 4559 transactions.
if you want to make a transaction You must pay the fees and you control them. When you pay more fees, the conversion process will be faster

So far, I have joined, and never transferred the BTC to the cost, if it is not possible, it will not be possible. It depends on how many you want to transfer

sigh...  

4 posts ago, i did my very best to give a non-technical, but complete answer to all those people spreading incorrect information... But it seems like people don't even read the last couple of posts before they start blurting out misinformation...

Unless somebody starts a serious, to-the-point discussion in this thread, i'm giving up... This will be my last reply in this thread (unless, as i've said before, serious posters start posting here). EDIT: i couldn't help myself... People just blurt out whatever nonsense comes to their minds, so i simply had to reply to a couple posts

I'll take even one more step back from the technical crypto-related discussion, and simplify even more... Bare with me, this is going to take a certain level of imagination.

Imagine you are a photo editor and you make a living watermarking images with some text. You get payed if the image you watermarked is published in a newspaper.
It's a very simple world you live in, there are only 2 photo editors available:

• microsoft paint, running on micro$oft windows... Very easy to use, no learning curve... That's why 99% of the photo editors use it
• Gimp, running on linux... Great program, but both the OS and the photo editing software have a bigger learning curve, that's why only 1% of the editors use it

One day, there is a communist attack in your world... Allmost all newspapers decide that red text can be linked to communism, so most of the newspapers in the world no longer print pictures that have a red text watermark on them.
Beecause micro$oft tries to shield it's users (they're not that tech savvy), they decide that all future versions of paint will no longer feature the color "red". It is now impossible to change any pixel into a red one, let alone put red text on an image. Gimp on the other hand, being an open source program, allows it's users the freedom to do whatever they want (no ban on the color red).

After a while, you visit a forum where photo editors congregate, and somebody asks if red text can still be added to a picture. 90% Of the posters immediately answer: "no". Some tech savvy posters start to mumble about technical possibility's but immediately point out that no newspaper will ever accept the image.

But the truth is: there is no law against red letters on an image, there are still photo viewers that show images (even with red letters), there is an image editor that still allows the color red (but it's not very user-friendly, since you need to install a different OS and learn how to use gimp). There are even a small amount of newspapers that don't correlate red text to the communist attacks, and they're willing to buy your images with red text watermarks if you would make them.
So, the answer to the question is: "YES", with a sidenote that you need some technical knowledge to do this, and you'll have a hard time finding a newspaper that's willing to publish your images... So if you'd just add blue letters to the image, it would make your life a lot easyer...

I know, the comparison of this imaginary world to 0 fee transactions isn't perfect, but to a certain degree, it is valid...
If you wish to know why, just look at my earlyer posts in this very topic...

A last remark: people don't seem to get some simple facts about fees.
When a miner finds a block header whose sha256d hash is under the current target, the block he found is valid. The first transaction in the block is the coinbase transaction, it usually funds one of the miner's addresses with a value of: 12.5 BTC + the sum of the fees of all transactions in the block.
If a miner would add no transactions, or all 0 fee transactions, he'd STILL get 12.5 BTC (untill the next block reward halving).

The sum of the fees is very small compared to the 12.5 BTC, so the difference to a miner is neglectible at this moment (i'm not talking about those spam-attack, bidding war, full blocks periods... At these periods, a miner might get significant income from mining fees, and at this point it would be unimaginable to get a 0 fee transaction into a block unless you pay a huge miner to increase the priority of your transaction in his mempool)

In times of blocks being incompletely filled, it would be perfectly possible to fill the blocks with 0 fee transactions IF (and only if) people would start running nodes that relayed 0 fee transactions, and miners would be willing to include them into blocks... The reason they're not doing this is probably because in a couple block halvings, they reward will be rather low, and they'll have to start depending on the fees to make a living... But like i said: this is in the far future, this is not happening right now... Right now, a miner choses not to include 0 fee transactions because 1) it doesn't give him any monetary incentive to do so and 2) because the default config he might be running is already configured not to accept 0 fee transactions.

Are you serious?It seems like you want to buy an item from a grocery store that is tax exempted huh?
Will never happen buddy that is more than impossible to become reality

Yeah how would you expect the miners, who basically make transactions work, make money to sustain what they're doing. And it'll be difficult to find any alternatives for them given mining's requirements.

Sure possible, all major exchanges don't take any commission, so just store your btc there

This is one of those threads where i feel i'm taking one step foreward and two steps back...

I've tried explaining (twice), but the thread keeps getting filled by people that post their feelings about the subject unhindered by any knowledge on the topic that's being discussed.

Please read this post before mumbling false claims in this thread

• It is true that most wallets (and especially the gui versions) have disabled the feature to create 0 fee transactions
• It is true that most node implementations reject 0 fee transactions (especially if they're setup using their default config)
• It is true that most miners won't include 0 fee transactions into the blocks they're trying to solve

HOWEVER

There is nothing in the bitcoin protocol stopping anybody from creating 0 fee transactions, broadcasting them, relaying them, including them in VALID blocks! It's not because the software implementations removed the option from their menu's that the protocol changed in a way that would make 0 fee transactions invalid.

IF you know what you're doing, AND you know a miner that would still accept 0 fee transactions, you WOULD be able to get a 0 fee transaction into a block (given that the miner got lucky and found a valid block header).
Offcourse, this is not the standard way of doing things, sure it's not possible if you stick to using the gui of most of the wallets and try to broadcast the transaction to a couple random nodes, that does not mean the protocol no longer allows this...

As a matter of fact, only 1 page ago in this very thread, i proved that a 0 fee transaction could still be generated... I suppose most of the people posting garbage after this post had no idear what i was posting, since they only saw a sequence of ascii characters without realising it was in fact a valid, signed transaction they were looking at:
Offcourse, i don't know any nodes that have no minimum relay fee (even my own nodes have a minimum relay fee, and i'm not about to change this), nor do i know a big mining pool operator that still accepts 0 fee transactions, so getting this transaction into a valid block is very hard, but NOT impossible!

  No,it is impossible because miners needs a payment that's why every bitcoin transaction has a transaction fee that we need to pay. There is no thanks for today,all need fees for every transaction not only in bitcoin even in other cryptocurrency.

Nope this can't happen, good question though but it can't be free transactions around here and don't think of the miners being greedy about this because they are just doing their jobs, once transactions are being connected they will take out a very small portion depending also with the amount of BTC that you have sent

Right, every time you make transaction in bitcoin and not only bitcoin also other business they have transaction fee and this is not free, cause it make your transaction become safe secured and make it fast. Your fee in your transaction it use to pay the miners and other maintenance charges.

If markets, it is different problem. They charge fees because they need money to maintain their site, so we still can use their site with confident and no problem happen to them. But maybe in above i only said there is a way to send bitcoin to other person without transaction fee.

Well you can try it for yourself and see how it works out. My guess is: Not very well. Transaction fees are what keeps our whole ecosystem healthy. No transaction fees... no miners to verify transactions.

As far as possible bitcoin transfer without transactions fees is impossible. But coinbase to coinbase bitcoin transfer fees is very low in amounts.

In that transaction we can see how long you need to receive, it's around 2 days. But I still can't believe that transaction can succeed in 2 days without fees. Like a something strange and I don't know about that.

Moreover, the fees that are too low can cause your transaction to crash, this has happened a long time ago and I personally also experienced it at that time because I was too low in placing fees. So in my opinion it is impossible for us to be able to make transactions without fees.

Miners are the ones responsible for verifying every transaction in bitcoin blockchain. Thus, it is not possible to have free transaction. Unless, bitcoin developers would create a set of rules for this matter. Though, it is not the case as.of now since there is a lot of bitcoin remained unmined.

No, you have to pay for the fees in order for that transaction to be approved. How can you expect not to pay fees when it is business? And I think this is not a charity that everything is free. Anyway, the fees are very low so nothing to worry about you can compute it and decide whether to send it or not.