Topic: Just Made a Payment with the New Fees - page 2. (Read 3452 times)

i colour coded my responses to refer to the area's they answer:

thats called greed
all transactions should be treated the same. its just as bad as banks limiting daily withdrawal limits, ATM transactions,.bitcoin should never have become what it is today, controlling who or how people use their money! (explanation in brown)
the 5ksat satoshi dust limit prevents this and only able to do 2,100,000,000,000,000 transactions.. if the guy owned every bitcoin there ever was in the year 2140
currently each block has 1mb potential which means in your analogy all those 701kb of transactions would fit in the block = 1 block not 50... so unsure where you are even pulling 50 blocks from..
already rebuttled the priority concern
Free and control. in the sentence.. now that's comedy gold

^ is right, you can only choose to include your own transactions when you solo mine. It was a poor idea; sorry.


I wasn't thinking about solo mining (where you can include your own transactions in the block you are hashing); I was thinking about pool mining... Unless you own the mining pool you can't choose to include your own transactions...

Again, sorry for the poor idea.

Thanks for the lesson DT.  So, are we correct to assume that these dynamics won't likely change in the future? (Iow there is no reason to suspect miner greed will become an issue)

Not free, but relatively inexpensive. And don't forget that the age of the coins matters, too.

It isn't greed.  Fees are a rounding error on miner compensation and any pool making six figures a year knows that.  Fees are used to prioritize tx and avoid spam.  High priority txs don't require any fee.  Roughly 20% of all tx (at the time of the post when I ran the query) in the past 24 hours paid no fee.

However lets imagine there was no fee, it was impossible to pay a fee until some future block.  So what happens when someone makes 48927490147289379328437894732498374983 txs for free involving 1 satoshi each.  We go to a 39829137902 TB blockchain in one year?  

Even more mundane say a given miner is only willing to make a 700KB block (because losses due to orphans are real and a much bigger impact on net revenue than fees).  Now lets say 701KB of tx are waiting.  Who gets into the block?  Pick tx at random?  So randomly you could have to wait 50 blocks before getting confirmed?  Sound like a good plan?  Or maybe sort tx by priority?  So the rich get unlimited free tx (having large old coins) and the poors always go last (having smaller younger coins).  The worse part is that since there is no fee system they have no way to EVER get ahead of the "bitcoin rich" in priority.

Fees (which are insanely low compared to conventional payment systems and a rounding error for miner compensation) serve a purpose to prioritize the critical resource which is space in the next block.   It is how free markets work.  Price control (even price of zero) never work.  They simply never work, you either end up with excessive usage (and someone else pays the cost) or you end up with resource shortfall and having to put in place artificial limits (think gas lines in the oil shock of 1970s).

transaction fee is lower now, even wo have to pay for fee , but it is much more cheaper than bank hangling charge.

still no excuse for mining pool owners greed, the taxing of average joe consumer, and bitcoin price drops

The fee is higher for all traditional electronic forms of payment.

I hope they will.  Why aren't they?

This is very misguided advice. You are assuming that you would mine a block within the next few hours on your CPU which will never ever ever ever happen. If you mine a block using your CPU within the next 100 years at the current difficulty I'd be surprised. If everyone could just include their own transactions and mine the block that has that transaction, then the entire network is vulnerable to double spends and what not...

why are you lieing to ppl?

you not wrong as you said 0.0001 is a low fee when sending $10mill.. but a huge fee for purchasing a candy bar,  bottle of pepsi, a banana, coffee, sandwich. a litre of car fuel..

you know, the main products that will make mainstreaming succeed.. so ignore the fee's when talking about millionaires laundering funds.. think about it from the common mans prospective.

i have said it on a different thread. but to pt more common man rospective on bitcoin..
fee's on average per block only add upto 0.25btc at most.

so demanding subsidies does not hlp out miners to be able to afford their electric. to explain ill just leave this food for thought
0.25btc = 1% of 25btc
mining pool fee's = 1%
mining pool owner = rich.
miners = not as rich.

so will miners realise your not getting richer from fee income
so will miners realise your not getting richer when selling cheap
so will miners realise your not getting richer when demanding people pay transaction tax (fee's)

"Little to no fees" is a favourable term I've seen used a lot.

The fee is based on the size of the data file and not the actual value of the coins being sent so it costs the same to send $10 or $10,000,000 worth of bitcoin.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

economics of mining should be, if the 25btc is being shared out too thinly.. dont sell it cheap and demand to be subsidized (with fee's)

instead, if miners stopped selling so cheap, the price would rise and they could then sell at higher prices to pay their electric bills.

but no the greedy impatient miners prefer to demand subsidies instead. causing higher transaction costs and lower bitcoin value..

now you learn economics
your economics is to drop bitcoin value and tax transactions
everyone else s economics is to have free transactions and a healthy bitcoin price..

all miners are doing is making bitcoin into a greed fest, like government money. where the people making the currency demand extra money from the average people, whilst devaluing that same money..

bitcoin is now
taxed - due to fee's
not for microtransactions - due to fee's and satoshi dust limit of 5k minimum spend
not depreciable - due to fee's and satoshi dust limit of 5k minimum spend
only "low fee" on high priced products. - a 50c pack of mints has a 10% fee

if people cant spend just 0.00005000 because of fees and limits. then people wont use it for small items and the bitcoin price wont rise. because people cant use it at low level pricing

Yes you should stop telling people it's free. It's not free and never has been and never will be.

Keep in mind Bitcoin is not fully evolved, not even close.

That's a really cool thing about it. Not everything is known about normalized Bitcoin usage yet because it's still so early in its life. Many possibilities remain.

Saying it's free to send bitcoin isn't entirely false. It can be misleading, though. Technically, it's possible to send a bitcoin transaction without any fee. It's just not smooth, or very reliable, yet. It may never be practical to send "quick" transactions without any fee on the core Bitcoin network, but that's not the only way to transfer bitcoins. It may become possible to send bitcoin transactions completely free or for negligible fees at some point in the future via off-chain transactions, for example. I still believe that will be a big part of Bitcoin's future. It makes sense, eases block size limit pressure, and can foster innovative market based solutions for transfer, such as ad based monetization models in lieu of fees.

Remember, bitcoins are not physical. Their inherently digital nature coupled with a global Internet means possibilities for cheap, efficient transfer are many.

You don't seem to have considered the economics of mining at all. With current rewards and fees, the orphan risk of including a transaction in a block far outweighs the fee, so we're relying on miners including transactions in blocks out of altruism. Some miners don't include any transactions in their blocks, and they make slightly more money on average. Paying no fees at all would further incentivize such behavior, jeopardizing the survival of the entire economy.

It is free because fees are optional (for now).

will people stop thinking that miners NEED fee's
25btc is more then enough to share between them every 10 minutes

if they decide to sell it at a low buy price instantly, that is their fault. we do not need to subsidise them like the government subsidises farmers, purely to make rich corporations richer.

fee's should have only been an issue to be added in a couple decades time. not for the last 5 years and not for any year soon.

i propose miners stop being greedy asking for more money, and instead hoard what they have until bitcoin price rises to the value they want,. they should not sell instantly at a low price and then cry that its not profitable, and then blame the community for not giving them a subsidy..

seriously people the fee's are a greedy bonus. they do not help the community, it does not help with the whole "micro payment" ethos that bit coin had. nor the "free transactions" that bitcoin had.

bitcoin fundamentals are being diluted or eventually disappearing completely due to greed

i am not going to be able to buy a 50c chewing gum at a vending machine if im being charged 5c..

yes the fee is not as noticeable for large transactions.. but that then makes bitcoin a payment system "only for the rich"

i hope people realise that bitcoin is loosing its main concept and usefulness slowly each day.

take the core-QT. it no longer allows you to simply copy and paste a already known address to hand out to people. Luke Jr wants people to keep editing their donations button to be new addresses per use. hense why this feature is in the core-qt.

yes great for merchants to audit transactions.. but not for average joe.

OK OK. It's nearly free. Almost free.
Do you think any credit card or debit card or paypal payment costs less in the long run? No, because you are hit with all kinds of bank charges for having an account or a card, and the merchant is hit with fees which are always passed on to consumers and hidden in the product price.

5c per payment is dirt cheap and Bitcoin could cleanup if it remained in that range long-term.