Topic: Just what is a FAIR fee to send a Bitcoin transaction? - page 5. (Read 7395 times)
0.0001 btc is enough if you ask me. currently the miners don't really need the fees as they still get 25btc per block. that might change after the halving. pools will get more picky regarding including transactions then.
can we speak in bitcoin please? i cannot recognize cent when i deal with mbtc ubtc everyday
i think that at best 100k satoshi should suffice for any TX, i'll not pay more unleas i want to move a very large amount
i think that at best 100k satoshi should suffice for any TX, i'll not pay more unleas i want to move a very large amount
...
I am OK with about $0.05 (or BTC0.0002). At this point with the attacks hitting the blockchain, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to disallow tiny payments.
I am sympathetic to the idea of micropayments, but perhaps they can be handled on sidechains or by other measures as mentioned above.
IIUC, the spammers are close to filling up the 1MB blocks at times.
A nickel payment is just fine if it ensures that these guys (spammers) are dispensed with...
I am OK with about $0.05 (or BTC0.0002). At this point with the attacks hitting the blockchain, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to disallow tiny payments.
I am sympathetic to the idea of micropayments, but perhaps they can be handled on sidechains or by other measures as mentioned above.
IIUC, the spammers are close to filling up the 1MB blocks at times.
A nickel payment is just fine if it ensures that these guys (spammers) are dispensed with...
i think we have to consider a couple of things here.
first is that right now miners will get 25BTC as the block reward and with current price (and rising price) it is enough for them to make it profitable. so they are not relying only on transaction fees so it can be low.
second is that the amount of bitcoin you send can be different for every use, for example if you want to do a micro transaction with small amount then 0.0001BTC can be huge for you. but if you want to send a large sum of money like 100BTC then it is nothing in comparison.
first is that right now miners will get 25BTC as the block reward and with current price (and rising price) it is enough for them to make it profitable. so they are not relying only on transaction fees so it can be low.
second is that the amount of bitcoin you send can be different for every use, for example if you want to do a micro transaction with small amount then 0.0001BTC can be huge for you. but if you want to send a large sum of money like 100BTC then it is nothing in comparison.
I can only just admire the discussion in this thread.
We are talking about a transaction fee, in the pennies, to send a financial transaction to the other side of the world.
Not taking bitcoin for granted, its a beautiful thing.
H.
We are talking about a transaction fee, in the pennies, to send a financial transaction to the other side of the world.
Not taking bitcoin for granted, its a beautiful thing.
H.
Current transaction fee 0.0001BTC below 0.01BTC transaction is good enough. The best value is 0.0005BTC for transaction under 0.01BTC for miners and prevent spammers. Also we can use the range of value to determine transaction fee.
tx fees should be % based with a minimum fees
like 0.10% with minimum of 0.0001btc for each tx
like 0.10% with minimum of 0.0001btc for each tx
What are fees for? Fees are subsidy to miners and fees are only at 2% of total revenue for mining a block. Miners want more fees, but they don't need it now in 2015. Higher fees increase the costs of spam. It does not stop spam. Higher fees could reduce spam but also price-out low income users. Bitcoin is a global currency. There are parts of the world where $1 can buy food for the whole family. We cannot set fee to be too high. We need to have low fees to promote bitcoin for these worse-off countries.
Now that sequences of blocks are relatively close to the maximum, and a lot of spamming is going on, is there an opinion that fees are too low?
8 months ago 55% selected 1 cent or less, 81% selected 5 cents. Are higher fees the best defense against spammers?
8 months ago 55% selected 1 cent or less, 81% selected 5 cents. Are higher fees the best defense against spammers?
Anything bigger will make bitcoiners angry.
.0001
Miners will be happy with 0.0001
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
i get your point. i think Gavin said something like that once. Like toasters and everyday appliances will just
have mining built in, etc. Or we can use SHA-256 mining to produce heat, stuff like that. I agree
it could go that direction.
have mining built in, etc. Or we can use SHA-256 mining to produce heat, stuff like that. I agree
it could go that direction.
You are correct about the bank fees....but Incorrect about bitcoin.
We will ALWAYS need miners, it is the basis. Please learn more about Bitcoin.
We will ALWAYS need miners, it is the basis. Please learn more about Bitcoin.
I don't mean we don't need miners. I mean for the process to be automated. Think about big data-centers running on renewable energy. A Netherland windmill with a Bitcoin logo on it..
As I'm literally looking at my colleagues counting his(her) coin he(she) is mining at home; I disagree with the efficiency of home-based miners. Miners will grow weary soon. Or at least up until 2040. By that time who knows what the picture is like.
For now let's keep them happy. I like my colleague when he(she) is happy.
From another thread:
Quote
It would be quite easy to get a 'cash back' for using Bitcoin. The intel value coming off of the solution probably exceeds the value of being able to scan people's 'private' e-mail and spy on their surfing habits. I don't doubt for a minute that a majority of people would 'jump eeen it.' Especially now in the late 2014 makeup of the community.
Next time you do one of these polls, it would be more complete to have an option to find out how many people would like to simply have a handful of the large players operating Bitcoin and providing various perks for using Bitcoin on their platform. My guess is that it would be a wildly popular option and that only a sliver of the worldwide population would see any potential issues with it.
As a bonus, the transaction rate cap could be lifted entirely making micro-transactions practicable. This because the top tier infrastructure providers have the ability to scale almost indefinitely, and they also could meet the BitLicence requirements in terms of personal identification and probably would love an excuse to do so.
Yet another bonus would be that with only a handful of infrastructure providers they can optimize between their facilities and could easily solve the 10-minute block latency related issues and make Bitcoin a real-time solution. Particularly if they had high-reliability personal identification of their users.
Enough to keep all miners pleased...
Don't mess with them, because they are the endorsement of the whole network.
More transactions in a block means lower tx fee, but generally higher award for miners.
Don't mess with them, because they are the endorsement of the whole network.
More transactions in a block means lower tx fee, but generally higher award for miners.
considering most bank transfers cost roughly €0.09, $0.05
Seriously?In my country most bank transfers don't cost anything.
So, I stick with that also in Bitcoin. Miners get block reward, so I don't see why they should get transaction fees.
Banks have a lot of other avenues for earning income, apart from transaction fees.
As the block reward reduces over the years, transaction fees will become the main source of income for miners.
The receiving client keeps track of this and uses the scores for a raffled ad rotation system. The receivers' local client uses the user's unique ID for use in any compliant ad server. The receiver, then, can use this list and use the ad server to dedicate an ad slot on their platform (website, app, whatever) to paying back people sending him data.
It adds a lot of overhead and sounds like a real pain in the ass to implement, and it relies on people being nice, but I never even thought it was possible to pay transmitters, before. Sounds really complicated (and would probably need to be partially centralized so it isn't BFL/Pirateat40/BitcoinTrader spam 24/7), but clients could handle this all with default settings and downloading a kind of add-on which transmits the extra data. The rest'd be on the major service providers.
0,0001 is cool
considering most bank transfers cost roughly €0.09, $0.05
Seriously?In my country most bank transfers don't cost anything.
So, I stick with that also in Bitcoin. Miners get block reward, so I don't see why they should get transaction fees.
Banks have a lot of other avenues for earning income, apart from transaction fees.
As the block reward reduces over the years, transaction fees will become the main source of income for miners.
The receiving client keeps track of this and uses the scores for a raffled ad rotation system. The receivers' local client uses the user's unique ID for use in any compliant ad server. The receiver, then, can use this list and use the ad server to dedicate an ad slot on their platform (website, app, whatever) to paying back people sending him data.
It adds a lot of overhead and sounds like a real pain in the ass to implement, and it relies on people being nice, but I never even thought it was possible to pay transmitters, before. Sounds really complicated (and would probably need to be partially centralized so it isn't BFL/Pirateat40/BitcoinTrader spam 24/7), but clients could handle this all with default settings and downloading a kind of add-on which transmits the extra data. The rest'd be on the major service providers.
3 cents is appropriate
Jump to: