Some transactions 0.00000001 or 0.00005
this what comisions % or pool miners
this i say what i see in my life in practics
Topic: Is it possible to include a large amount fee while sending a small amount coins? (Read 1565 times)
October 26, 2013, 10:11:21 AM
October 26, 2013, 09:45:57 AM
Here's a fun thought experiment.
The U.S. government seizes equipment with unencrypted private keys that can access 100,000+ BTC.
After the trial is over, they are trying to decide what to do about the bitcoins they can control.
They publicly announce:
How would it play out?
The U.S. government seizes equipment with unencrypted private keys that can access 100,000+ BTC.
After the trial is over, they are trying to decide what to do about the bitcoins they can control.
They publicly announce:
Quote
On {insert date and time stamp a few months in the future here} we will be making a 0.01 BTC transaction and the entire remaining quantity of seized bitcoins will be included in this single transaction as a transaction fee. The bitcoin community is welcome to do with it whatever they like.
How would it play out?
Interesting... As a workaround, would it be possible that miners have:
- The right to keep up to 30% of the fees they process
- The obligation to redistribute the ~70% left to the network, as "free fees" for other miners
- The duty to check that all other miners are complying to 2 first rules, and invalidate any cheating miner
October 25, 2013, 05:33:36 PM
for now, but I think that will change in the near futur
transactions per day are rising fast, and the next revard halving is incomming,
in addition miner have to calculate more sharply, I just don't see any Pool after the next halving beeing able to keep the fees.
Besides, with such a mega fee miners would have an incentive to switch to a pool which pays the fees,
transactions per day are rising fast, and the next revard halving is incomming,
in addition miner have to calculate more sharply, I just don't see any Pool after the next halving beeing able to keep the fees.
Besides, with such a mega fee miners would have an incentive to switch to a pool which pays the fees,
October 23, 2013, 01:44:53 AM
I think such a transaktion would result in all pools mining blocks with that transaction and trying to orphan the other pools transactions, also, If one pool has mined the transaction, then miners could jump to other pools, as if the transaction of thier original pool stays valid, the get thier share, no matter if they still mine for that pool, but on the other side, if an other pool should manage to orphan that block they want to be mining at that block...
So this could cause havoc with the network
So this could cause havoc with the network
Many pools keep the fee themselves, so it may not be an incentive for miners to jump pools because of that.
October 20, 2013, 02:52:47 PM
Could you tell me how and why that was? (You don't mean the version that fixed the bug and caused a fork do you? Because for that mining pools just needed to downgrade).
"Just needing to downgrade" would have meant erasing the blockchain database because their 0.8 installs were not compatible (different database formats), which would have meant being offline for a long time to sync back up. Instead, at least in the initial repair they fixed by directly hard coding a different block or by blacklistingthe one on the 0.8-only fork.Ah okay, didn't know the formats were that incompatible. I thought downgrading and performing a rescan would have done the trick.
Thanks again!
October 20, 2013, 01:55:52 PM
Could you tell me how and why that was? (You don't mean the version that fixed the bug and caused a fork do you? Because for that mining pools just needed to downgrade).
"Just needing to downgrade" would have meant erasing the blockchain database because their 0.8 installs were not compatible (different database formats), which would have meant being offline for a long time to sync back up. Instead, at least in the initial repair they fixed by directly hard coding a different block or by blacklistingthe one on the 0.8-only fork. 
October 19, 2013, 10:33:34 AM
Well, I'm certainly no socialist, but I don't like the idea that people who can afford paying higher fees, get their transaction processed faster than mine, because I plan to keep on paying low fees. I understand fees can vary according to the transaction's weight, but 2 transactions of the same weight shall require the same fee, and be processed at the same speed.
This is an auction.
There is limited space in the block. Those creating transactions are placing auction bids for that space.
It is perfectly fair and reasonable for the bidders to determine how much that space is worth to them.
October 19, 2013, 10:21:20 AM
Gosh! I've read so many posts about people complaining the fees were too high, it's nice to hear the opposite, even if it doesn't sound real. But, we may look at it as a way some evil-minded guy may want to corrupt the system. I usually make transactions with a 0.0005 or 0.001 fee. If some guy is stupid enough to make transactions with much higher fees, I'm afraid miners (who are not stupid) will look for ways to process these transactions before they do mine. I don't much imagine how they could do that, but then I'm not a programmer. Makes me think that since there is a limit on the bottom (a minimum fee), there could also be a limit on the upper side (a maximum fee).
Why? The amount of fee will be directly proportional to the priority the transaction gets. That's the whole idea. The more you pay the faster you are served. It doesn't get much fairer than that and it doesn't have to be defined explicitly because the free market of mining will take care of it
Well, I'm certainly no socialist, but I don't like the idea that people who can afford paying higher fees, get their transaction processed faster than mine, because I plan to keep on paying low fees. I understand fees can vary according to the transaction's weight, but 2 transactions of the same weight shall require the same fee, and be processed at the same speed.
October 19, 2013, 01:23:12 AM
Indeed. To purposefully orphan the block custom mining software is needed too and this will need to lie on the shelve ready to be deployed because of the required urgency. I don't see this happening.
It's ~one line of code to change to do it the simple stupid way. There is actually a patch ready to go sitting on github. Several large pools have intentionally orphaned a block in the past, so they're already experienced at it.Okay thanks for the info. I did not know it was so easy to hardcode to ignore a certain block (that's what I'm guessing you mean with stupid solution). I also didn't know pools already did this once. Could you tell me how and why that was? (You don't mean the version that fixed the bug and caused a fork do you? Because for that mining pools just needed to downgrade).
October 19, 2013, 01:20:54 AM
Gosh! I've read so many posts about people complaining the fees were too high, it's nice to hear the opposite, even if it doesn't sound real. But, we may look at it as a way some evil-minded guy may want to corrupt the system. I usually make transactions with a 0.0005 or 0.001 fee. If some guy is stupid enough to make transactions with much higher fees, I'm afraid miners (who are not stupid) will look for ways to process these transactions before they do mine. I don't much imagine how they could do that, but then I'm not a programmer. Makes me think that since there is a limit on the bottom (a minimum fee), there could also be a limit on the upper side (a maximum fee).
Why? The amount of fee will be directly proportional to the priority the transaction gets. That's the whole idea. The more you pay the faster you are served. It doesn't get much fairer than that and it doesn't have to be defined explicitly because the free market of mining will take care of it
October 18, 2013, 01:25:32 PM
Here's a fun thought experiment.
The U.S. government seizes equipment with unencrypted private keys that can access 100,000+ BTC.
After the trial is over, they are trying to decide what to do about the bitcoins they can control.
They publicly announce:
How would it play out?
The U.S. government seizes equipment with unencrypted private keys that can access 100,000+ BTC.
After the trial is over, they are trying to decide what to do about the bitcoins they can control.
They publicly announce:
Quote
On {insert date and time stamp a few months in the future here} we will be making a 0.01 BTC transaction and the entire remaining quantity of seized bitcoins will be included in this single transaction as a transaction fee. The bitcoin community is welcome to do with it whatever they like.
How would it play out?
October 18, 2013, 01:21:30 PM
Gosh! I've read so many posts about people complaining the fees were too high, it's nice to hear the opposite, even if it doesn't sound real. But, we may look at it as a way some evil-minded guy may want to corrupt the system. I usually make transactions with a 0.0005 or 0.001 fee. If some guy is stupid enough to make transactions with much higher fees, I'm afraid miners (who are not stupid) will look for ways to process these transactions before they do mine. I don't much imagine how they could do that, but then I'm not a programmer. Makes me think that since there is a limit on the bottom (a minimum fee), there could also be a limit on the upper side (a maximum fee).
October 18, 2013, 01:15:39 PM
Indeed. To purposefully orphan the block custom mining software is needed too and this will need to lie on the shelve ready to be deployed because of the required urgency. I don't see this happening.
It's ~one line of code to change to do it the simple stupid way. There is actually a patch ready to go sitting on github. Several large pools have intentionally orphaned a block in the past, so they're already experienced at it. October 18, 2013, 12:32:57 PM
If the person paying the 60,000 BTC transaction fee didn't announce it a significantly long time before they did it, I doubt it would be an issue.
Indeed. To purposefully orphan the block custom mining software is needed too and this will need to lie on the shelve ready to be deployed because of the required urgency. I don't see this happening.
If you announce it however ....
October 18, 2013, 11:48:09 AM
I think such a transaktion would result in all pools mining blocks with that transaction and trying to orphan the other pools transactions, also, If one pool has mined the transaction, then miners could jump to other pools, as if the transaction of thier original pool stays valid, the get thier share, no matter if they still mine for that pool, but on the other side, if an other pool should manage to orphan that block they want to be mining at that block...
So this could cause havoc with the network
So this could cause havoc with the network
The pool and the miners would have (on average) about 10 minutes to realize what just happened.
The pools would have to change their code to try to re-mine the same block.
The miners would have to switch to new pools.
If they didn't react fast enough they'd have to mine 3 blocks before the portion of the network that continues on the existing blockchain manages to get 1 block. The longer it takes to notice and react, the more blocks that have to be orphaned, and the harder it becomes to accomplish.
If the person paying the 60,000 BTC transaction fee didn't announce it a significantly long time before they did it, I doubt it would be an issue.
October 18, 2013, 11:38:05 AM
I think such a transaktion would result in all pools mining blocks with that transaction and trying to orphan the other pools transactions, also, If one pool has mined the transaction, then miners could jump to other pools, as if the transaction of thier original pool stays valid, the get thier share, no matter if they still mine for that pool, but on the other side, if an other pool should manage to orphan that block they want to be mining at that block...
So this could cause havoc with the network
So this could cause havoc with the network
October 18, 2013, 10:40:26 AM
Like, if I'm sending one btw, is it possible to pay 60K btc as the transaction fee?
If you happen to hold 60,001 BTC? Absolutely, and you'll make the miner (or mining pool) that solves the the block with your transaction VERY HAPPY.
October 18, 2013, 10:29:26 AM
yes and it will go to the miner
October 18, 2013, 10:25:09 AM
Like, if I'm sending one btw, is it possible to pay 60K btc as the transaction fee?
Jump to: