Topic: Linking fees to fiat? (Read 1106 times)
The idea would be helpful for people who are transacting small amounts bitcoins but not for those who are making huge transactions since if I understand your idea right, the fee would be prorated to the amount of transaction I think my vote would go to just have a fix amount. People are complaining huge fee their wallets have most of the time like my wallet the minimal fee is 0.002btc which is really uncomfortable.
If you expect the price of BTC to rise, then you better get used to the cost of fees rising too.
When there's a change you should adopt to it or you will remain in the race. That is what the miner is supposed to be, when in scarcity they tend to raise their price.Quote
Block space is a valuable and scarce resource, so it's priced accordingly.
Yeah, this is the main reason why fees are so high because of a limited space of block size for every transactions. Bitcoin Cash did maximize their block size to 8MB and has a small fees.
Why would you want to link fees to any other currency? It doesn't make sense. That would be the same as linking Bitcoin fees to Monero.
Quote
The only thing we can do is to spread the word. Every time there is a temporary surge in transaction fees there are dozens of threads on this forum and plenty of people complaining in chat rooms. That's a good opportunity to educate people how it all works.
This seems like a good starting point and we can go from there. A more fast approach will be to contact the different wallet developers and ask them to make the move. Set the recommended fee to '0.05 Cents' per transaction. I know this will only increase the on chain transactions but Eventually the memory pool will clear out and a new standard will be set. Same can be done for priority transactions and set the 'fastest fee' to 0.50 cents. Don't know how many developers will be willing to do this.
It makes no sense to associate fees with fiat value. There's no decentralized way to link fees to fiat; it would require centralized coordination every step of the way. Bitcoin is meant to function via incentives through its native currency. Fiat should be irrelevant.
Fees are denominated in BTC, and Bitcoin's deflationary supply means that transaction fees will rise (as denominated in BTC) over time to replace the block subsidy. I'm actually annoyed that Blockchain.info shows $ value by default rather than BTC value. If you expect the price of BTC to rise, then you better get used to the cost of fees rising too. Block space is a valuable and scarce resource, so it's priced accordingly.
Quote
The only thing we can do is to spread the word. Every time there is a temporary surge in transaction fees there are dozens of threads on this forum and plenty of people complaining in chat rooms. That's a good opportunity to educate people how it all works.
This seems like a good starting point and we can go from there. A more fast approach will be to contact the different wallet developers and ask them to make the move. Set the recommended fee to '0.05 Cents' per transaction. I know this will only increase the on chain transactions but Eventually the memory pool will clear out and a new standard will be set. Same can be done for priority transactions and set the 'fastest fee' to 0.50 cents. Don't know how many developers will be willing to do this.
How can we reach a consensus that's the big question here. How to make awareness among users that not to send the recommended fees by the clients they are using.
The only thing we can do is to spread the word. Every time there is a temporary surge in transaction fees there are dozens of threads on this forum and plenty of people complaining in chat rooms. That's a good opportunity to educate people how it all works.
I believe that in the long term the free market will come to a solution. For example, I recently wanted to move some coin from one exchange to another and found it was cheaper to exchange into LTC for the transfer and exchange back to BTC when it got there. That was one less Tx in the mempool, the more people making those sort of decisions the bigger the impact. Also, high fees incentivise the technical advancements. It will speed up adoption of Segwit and off-chain transactions in the future. Ligtning Network may seem to be a long way in the future but high fees give an added incentive to get there quicker.
At this time, I bet it won't happen even if you got backed up by the media.
Money drives the world and will still be. Look at the Markets, fiat or Cryptos, they will be the same as always, and the price will make the transaction fees wilder than ever. Bitcoin is Decentralized and you can't do much about it.
At least spreading the word in this forum can make a change in the future when people had realized what they are into.
As for the OP, linking the fees to fiat directly is a terrible idea. However, there are clients that are acting as exchange and wallets that may set the payment for transaction in fiat even though the addresses are holding btc the whole time.
that's all.
Money drives the world and will still be. Look at the Markets, fiat or Cryptos, they will be the same as always, and the price will make the transaction fees wilder than ever. Bitcoin is Decentralized and you can't do much about it.
At least spreading the word in this forum can make a change in the future when people had realized what they are into.
As for the OP, linking the fees to fiat directly is a terrible idea. However, there are clients that are acting as exchange and wallets that may set the payment for transaction in fiat even though the addresses are holding btc the whole time.
that's all.
How can we reach a consensus that's the big question here. How to make awareness among users that not to send the recommended fees by the clients they are using. Also those who want fast confirmations, also shouldn't send more than let's say 0.50 dollars per transaction. It's a matter of spreading the word i think and sticking to it.
What's the best way to do this? Signature campaigns? Contact clients and make them set the default fees to 0.05 cents and so on. Sounds too much work for me but i will think of something..
What's the best way to do this? Signature campaigns? Contact clients and make them set the default fees to 0.05 cents and so on. Sounds too much work for me but i will think of something..
As btc climbs, perhaps the answer would be to reduce the amount of sats; it would be fair and logical this way as well as keeping it competitive. imho.
If set to USD, the change would be somewhat ideologically supporting USD as the 'worlds reserve currency'.
While that may be reflective of USD status across the globe, it would be politically unpalatable by many.
While that may be reflective of USD status across the globe, it would be politically unpalatable by many.
Absolutely agree with you, fees are getting really high now a days. A reasonable solution needs to be found in order to continue BTC as a practical transaction entity. If a fee is about 0.00000555BTC for Bitcoin at 9K, that cost around 7cent which is quite genuine to pay and nobody got any problem with. It will definitely help BTC to gain more popularity and can be used as real-time currency for day to day transaction.
So fellow bitcointalk members, we have seen many people complain about 'high fees'. The problem here is that those users only take fiat into consideration, never thinking that it only costs 50k Satoshis for a transaction of an average size.
I was thinking of a solution for this, now i am not a technical person, so i need your input on this, if this is even possible or not. Can the core developers link the fee to say 0.05 cents in fiat terms? So if bitcoin is at 9k it will cost 0.00000555 btc to send a transaction, if bitcoin drops to 8k it will cost 0.00000625 btc to send a transaction and so on. Keeping the transaction fees to 0.05 cents at all times. If the transaction size is greater than 226 bytes and less than 500 bytes it will cost 10 cents and so on.
Is this possible via a soft fork? Should even this be implemented? Or will it work in the long run, i would like to hear your opinions on this.
Yes its absolutely possible and is the need of hour too. Watching bitcoin climbing just over $11000 will mean each satoshi is now worth 0.00011$ and an average swift transaction carries a weight of lets assume around 150 sats/byte. Considering a 200 byte transaction is now costing around $3.3 if people hope bitcoin to reach $100000 the fees would reach $30 per transaction. So that means if you pay someone $100 30% would just vanish out in air. I don't really think this is something what most people want from their currency. I was thinking of a solution for this, now i am not a technical person, so i need your input on this, if this is even possible or not. Can the core developers link the fee to say 0.05 cents in fiat terms? So if bitcoin is at 9k it will cost 0.00000555 btc to send a transaction, if bitcoin drops to 8k it will cost 0.00000625 btc to send a transaction and so on. Keeping the transaction fees to 0.05 cents at all times. If the transaction size is greater than 226 bytes and less than 500 bytes it will cost 10 cents and so on.
Is this possible via a soft fork? Should even this be implemented? Or will it work in the long run, i would like to hear your opinions on this.
So this idea of fees linked with fiat is really the need of hour if we are looking forward to BTC as a currency or else one would simply rely on it as an asset giving good return.
I don't think you have read the past few posts if you really are going to agree with OP without addressing any of the issues everyone else has been bringing up about the fees being tied to a fiat value. Sure, it might be possible, but at least the way OP proposes it is an absolutely abysmal idea. It diverges from the concept of free market and does not address many of the issues that are solved by miners being able to prioritize transactions by their value. I suggest you start reading posts in a thread before you reply yourself.
So fellow bitcointalk members, we have seen many people complain about 'high fees'. The problem here is that those users only take fiat into consideration, never thinking that it only costs 50k Satoshis for a transaction of an average size.
I was thinking of a solution for this, now i am not a technical person, so i need your input on this, if this is even possible or not. Can the core developers link the fee to say 0.05 cents in fiat terms? So if bitcoin is at 9k it will cost 0.00000555 btc to send a transaction, if bitcoin drops to 8k it will cost 0.00000625 btc to send a transaction and so on. Keeping the transaction fees to 0.05 cents at all times. If the transaction size is greater than 226 bytes and less than 500 bytes it will cost 10 cents and so on.
Is this possible via a soft fork? Should even this be implemented? Or will it work in the long run, i would like to hear your opinions on this.
Yes its absolutely possible and is the need of hour too. Watching bitcoin climbing just over $11000 will mean each satoshi is now worth 0.00011$ and an average swift transaction carries a weight of lets assume around 150 sats/byte. Considering a 200 byte transaction is now costing around $3.3 if people hope bitcoin to reach $100000 the fees would reach $30 per transaction. So that means if you pay someone $100 30% would just vanish out in air. I don't really think this is something what most people want from their currency. I was thinking of a solution for this, now i am not a technical person, so i need your input on this, if this is even possible or not. Can the core developers link the fee to say 0.05 cents in fiat terms? So if bitcoin is at 9k it will cost 0.00000555 btc to send a transaction, if bitcoin drops to 8k it will cost 0.00000625 btc to send a transaction and so on. Keeping the transaction fees to 0.05 cents at all times. If the transaction size is greater than 226 bytes and less than 500 bytes it will cost 10 cents and so on.
Is this possible via a soft fork? Should even this be implemented? Or will it work in the long run, i would like to hear your opinions on this.
So this idea of fees linked with fiat is really the need of hour if we are looking forward to BTC as a currency or else one would simply rely on it as an asset giving good return.
I don't know if that is possible through the use of fork but blockchain have some sort of features where user can make their account balance or transaction show in bitcoin or USD.
So fellow bitcointalk members, we have seen many people complain about 'high fees'. The problem here is that those users only take fiat into consideration, never thinking that it only costs 50k Satoshis for a transaction of an average size.
I was thinking of a solution for this, now i am not a technical person, so i need your input on this, if this is even possible or not. Can the core developers link the fee to say 0.05 cents in fiat terms? So if bitcoin is at 9k it will cost 0.00000555 btc to send a transaction, if bitcoin drops to 8k it will cost 0.00000625 btc to send a transaction and so on. Keeping the transaction fees to 0.05 cents at all times. If the transaction size is greater than 226 bytes and less than 500 bytes it will cost 10 cents and so on.
Is this possible via a soft fork? Should even this be implemented? Or will it work in the long run, i would like to hear your opinions on this.
I was thinking of a solution for this, now i am not a technical person, so i need your input on this, if this is even possible or not. Can the core developers link the fee to say 0.05 cents in fiat terms? So if bitcoin is at 9k it will cost 0.00000555 btc to send a transaction, if bitcoin drops to 8k it will cost 0.00000625 btc to send a transaction and so on. Keeping the transaction fees to 0.05 cents at all times. If the transaction size is greater than 226 bytes and less than 500 bytes it will cost 10 cents and so on.
Is this possible via a soft fork? Should even this be implemented? Or will it work in the long run, i would like to hear your opinions on this.
You are very correct to have taken that and make such insinuation but the fact is there is no way we can separate the two because subconsciously, you just do the calculations before sending anything. Imagine wanting to send a transaction and I have to use $30 to send it which is equivalent to more than one month rake home of some people in the country. When that happen, you don't keep quiet because you can't just live with such high fees.
As Thekool1s described, such a system would require a consensus. It would be impossible to implement such system if even a single of the miners disagree with it, which given how you described it to be is actually very likely. Right now, the fees you pay for a transaction to be executed simply put you at a certain priority in the mempool. Miners then (usually) grab those with the highest priority, which would be the ones paying the highest fees. The system would simply interfere with this already natural supply-and-demand transaction flow. Another issue would be how to handle transactions when the mempool is overflowing? How do you prioritize transactions over others? Any possible solution would bring issues. For example, if miners processed transactions by age, the waiting time or delay for transactions to be processed would be enormous during times in which the network is congested. A first-come-first-serve basis is not always ideal, especially when it comes to financial transactions which may have real levels of priorities.
I think linking fees to fiat will require a decentralized exchange first.
Quote
Well, I think you can do that without waiting for a fork to happen, just put the amount you want to pay (you can use a USD to BTC converter) when sending your transaction, many wallets offer the possibility to define Tx fee.
I know, but there isn't a consensus, anyone can bid higher and get faster confirmations. Its like a pay to play system. Where if you have money to burn you can get a benefit of quick confirmations. Quote
The problem is if miners will accept to confirm it when you add low fee.
That's a big question here, if a consensus is created to send only 0.05 cents with each transaction, will they stop mining? or start to exclude the payments.Quote
2) This still wouldn't prevent a fee market from emerging. Someone will always be willing to pay a premium to get first in line, regardless of whether you calculate the price in fiat or BTC terms. As a result the fees will still increase according to network load factor.
Makes sense. Well my idea isn't viable then, their is a limitation that we need to factor in.
Fees must be paid in Bitcoin... it is part of how the system works. You would most likely need a hardfork for such a change. Maybe with lightning network channels you can route them somehow to fiat but I don't see the point, as it was mentioned, the fees are what they are because the resources (blockchain space) is limited. It's like if there was an auction every 10 minutes to get inside the blockchain, and highest fees get a priority. This doesn't change no matter where you link the fees with.
The question which fiat currency to use could probably be solved by using a composite of the most widely used fiat currencies. In the end I still see 2 challenges:
1) Defining a reliable exchange rate source. So far Bitcoin is pretty much self contained without relying on external information sources. Not even timestamps are fully trusted.
2) This still wouldn't prevent a fee market from emerging. Someone will always be willing to pay a premium to get first in line, regardless of whether you calculate the price in fiat or BTC terms. As a result the fees will still increase according to network load factor.
/thread
1) Defining a reliable exchange rate source. So far Bitcoin is pretty much self contained without relying on external information sources. Not even timestamps are fully trusted.
2) This still wouldn't prevent a fee market from emerging. Someone will always be willing to pay a premium to get first in line, regardless of whether you calculate the price in fiat or BTC terms. As a result the fees will still increase according to network load factor.
It's better to use Bitcoin imho. All Fiat currencies are unstable, and it would be difficult to know which one to choose.
/thread
Jump to: