Pages:
Author

Topic: Miner's fee a barrier to mass adoption - page 2. (Read 4380 times)

hero member
Activity: 717
Merit: 501
October 22, 2013, 05:36:40 PM
#46
The current fee of 0.0001 is about less than 2 US cents.

Merchants don't need to insist on a fee. But merchants will insist on a confirmation.

The solution is to have a fee of about $1-5 per transaction.  Thus about 0.01 at todays rate.  You want to get all the bastards like satoshi dice from spamming the chain.  What you do is you have 3-4 major exchanges acting as wallets for petty cash.  You would need no confirmation and pay like 0.5% fee to them for every transaction. Thus you put a bitcoin on the exchange for .01 fee thus you have $200 in value on there.  From there you just buy and sell and the exchange get a small amount of additional revenue.  If the site goes broke or skips town you lose your $100.   However, they have the incentive to stay with their fee.

These exchanges could even use a common wallet thus everyone would be using the same wallet.  Sort of like cirrus networks. Everything would be full reserve so you would not have to be worried about them using your money for loans to losers.  This main wallet would only have an extremely small amount of bitcoin there and would be sent as needed to fill the needs of merchants that want to cash out into real bitcoin.  This is actually already being done today in many ways.

Higher fees is the solution not the problem.  If you buy a $20,000 car or house, a $5 fee is not a problem.  You might even want to use a wallet for that for a paper trail and proof you paid.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
October 22, 2013, 10:59:58 AM
#45
Miner's fee is nothing compared to the potential problem we face if we start using the term "millibitcoin" or "millibit" as the standard denomination for bitcoin.  Talk about a branding nightmare.  

I totally agree. Look what the terms "c-note", "benjamin", "buck", "quarter", "dime", "nickel", "penny", and "cent" have done to the dollar! I don't think it will ever recover. Wink

Don't forget:

large, grand, G's, jackson, sawbuck, tenner, ten-spot, fin, bones, beans, greenback, clams, simoleons, smackers, two bits.

I suspect with a bit of searching, regional nicknames can be found as well.
legendary
Activity: 4466
Merit: 3391
October 22, 2013, 10:44:52 AM
#44
Miner's fee is nothing compared to the potential problem we face if we start using the term "millibitcoin" or "millibit" as the standard denomination for bitcoin.  Talk about a branding nightmare.  

I totally agree. Look what the terms "c-note", "benjamin", "buck", "quarter", "dime", "nickel", "penny", and "cent" have done to the dollar! I don't think it will ever recover. Wink
msc
sr. member
Activity: 284
Merit: 250
October 22, 2013, 07:26:49 AM
#43
Miner's fee is nothing compared to the potential problem we face if we start using the term "millibitcoin" or "millibit" as the standard denomination for bitcoin.  Talk about a branding nightmare.  
It's not ideal, but it shouldn't really be a problem as long as your wallet makes it clear and lets you switch.  It would be an improvement for small in-person transactions, even now.  But, Bitcoin should probably still be used as the brand name any time that you're not discussing a particular payment amount.
full member
Activity: 173
Merit: 100
October 22, 2013, 07:00:40 AM
#42
Miner's fee is nothing compared to the potential problem we face if we start using the term "millibitcoin" or "millibit" as the standard denomination for bitcoin.  Talk about a branding nightmare.  
legendary
Activity: 1002
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin
October 21, 2013, 09:48:13 PM
#41
I understand that the miner's fee is just a few cents, but am I the only one that sees it as a potential problem?

Situation 1: I buy something and refuse to pay the fee.  I know that blockchain.info will put it back in my account after 24 hours if it isn't confirmed.  Thus, merchants may refuse to take BTC fearing these types of "charge backs."

"so merchants just insist on a miner's fee!" is the simple answer, but imagine a busy restaurant or store ringing up lots of transactions an hour, usually by the typical teenage or marginally trained employees.  A lot of no fee transactions may slip through the cracks.

Situation 2: People making small purchases (under $10) for fast food or coffee are not going to want to tack on a few cents every time.

 "People shouldn't be so cheap!" is the easy answer to that, but they definitely are. Go ask people if they are willing to pay a few pennies every time they use their debit cards and see what the reactions are. Consumers hate that.

Ideas? Solutions?

Sorry to disapoint you here, but look carefully to debit cards/bank fees, it's a lot bigger than you may think imo !
legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
October 21, 2013, 08:51:41 PM
#40
What were the historical minimum fees before? I was around when the minimum fees were 0.0005, then it became 0.0001.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
October 21, 2013, 08:19:25 PM
#39
The problem with the fees is that they'll go up as the price of BTC goes up, so even though it's a few cents right now the fees could end up rivaling CC fees someday. 

The min mandatory fee has gone down four times as the value of BTC has risen.  Today (in BTC terms) is is 1/1000th of what it was originally.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
October 21, 2013, 08:18:42 PM
#38
i personally i find the fee system a bit of an unrequired feature for atleast a decade or two. the block 'reward' is more then enough... for now

Many miners will include "free" transactions.  The client however enforces a min mandatory fee on LOW PRIORITY tx.  There is no min mandatory fee on HIGH PRIORITY tx.  This rule is important as an anti denial of service mechanism.  It limits the amount that a malicious user is able to bloat the blockchain at no cost.  Without it one could simply send a tiny amount of BTC from one address to another and ensure all blocks are "full" continually.  Higher paying tx would get through but the attacker at negligible cost could ensure all blocks are "max" size.  Even with the 1MB "limit" that would still make the blockchain to date excessive large.
hero member
Activity: 608
Merit: 500
October 21, 2013, 07:54:00 PM
#37
The problem with the fees is that they'll go up as the price of BTC goes up, so even though it's a few cents right now the fees could end up rivaling CC fees someday. 
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 501
October 21, 2013, 07:19:55 PM
#36
I use Bitcoin-Qt, I find it interesting that people talk about Fee vs no fee likes the Fee is some kind of absolute. With QT people can change their default fee. If you feel .00001 is too high, then make it .000001. Several times i've used .00000005 as a fee just to see how long it would take to clear and i saw no noticeable delay.

So, paying a lower fee is a third option.
sr. member
Activity: 302
Merit: 250
October 21, 2013, 06:31:23 PM
#35
You already pay a fee to use your current banking system, it is just hidden (and for this reason can be much larger in without you noticing).

If you have ever: paid for a product from your bank (insurance, 'premium' account etc) then this is subsidising your fees. Not to mention, if you have ever had any kind of penalty fee (late repayment of credit, 'charge' for using abroad etc etc) then again these kind of things cover your transaction fees.

Do you really think that banks just operate to provide you with a free service? Get real.

Only the most concientious of consumers can operate a high street bank without incurring any fees, by never going overdrawn or using any other services other than current accounts/deposits never incur any additional fees, but this is still OK for the bank, as this usually means that you have enough money deposited there that they are able to gamble with it and make money off you that way.

In reality, bitcoin payments should have the ability to be much more transparent (you can see your fee) and at the same time be much cheaper for most people:

For example, my UK bank charges £6 per day if you go overdrawn. I once went overdrawn (they had decreased my overdraft limit without telling me) and was overdrawn until I saw my next statement; 16 days that was, thats a £96 fine right there.

For comparison, that would have paid for over 8000 bitcoin transactions, and that is a single (albeit admittidly large) 'fee'.

A 'normal' £25 fee would still 'pay for' about 2000 BTC transactions.

Oh yeah, try sending >10,000£ from one country to another using the fiat system and take a look at the charges; that would still cost the flat block inclusion fee in bitcoin (amount does not matter)

Just quoting this because it is exactly what I was going to type out. Also - credit card companies charge 1-4% PERCENT of every transaction to merchants who pass it along to the consumer. Merchants accepting Bitcoin would not have to do this.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
October 21, 2013, 02:34:45 PM
#34
i don't see this being that much of a problem, but maybe i am missing something.  Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
October 21, 2013, 02:24:43 PM
#33
By "eat" the fee, I just meant "hide" the fee.  Just like merchants currently do with credit cards and paypal.  And the main reason it would be appealing to do this is because customers are not used to the idea that they are paying a fee when they use credit cards now. 
It's appealing, but it's not how Bitcoin clients work.  If the merchant charges you 1.0, you pay 1.0001 out of your wallet.  If they charge you 0.9999, you pay 1.0 out of your wallet. 

If you wanted the merchant to pay the fee and hide it from the customer, there would have to be more communication between the merchant and the Bitcoin client, which seems silly to me.

yea - I realized that after I posted it.

Maybe this is something that needs to go into the payments protocol discussions.  (maybe it's already in there?)
msc
sr. member
Activity: 284
Merit: 250
October 21, 2013, 02:14:28 PM
#32
By "eat" the fee, I just meant "hide" the fee.  Just like merchants currently do with credit cards and paypal.  And the main reason it would be appealing to do this is because customers are not used to the idea that they are paying a fee when they use credit cards now. 
It's appealing, but it's not how Bitcoin clients work.  If the merchant charges you 1.0, you pay 1.0001 out of your wallet.  If they charge you 0.9999, you pay 1.0 out of your wallet. 

If you wanted the merchant to pay the fee and hide it from the customer, there would have to be more communication between the merchant and the Bitcoin client, which seems silly to me.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
October 21, 2013, 01:56:21 PM
#31
I understand ....  I know that blockchain.info will put it back in my account after 24 hours if it isn't confirmed.  Thus, merchants may refuse to take BTC fearing these types of "charge backs."

No you clearly don't understand and your facts are wrong.
sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
October 21, 2013, 01:54:45 PM
#30
I think that sellers of physical items that will be shipped would not mention the confirmation cycle.  They can simply hold shipment until they see the desired number of confirmations.  To the every-day honest buyer it will look the same as any CC purchase does now.  For downloadable digital purchases, it seems that the merchant would be best served by establishing a download queue.  They would show the user something like this: After you click "Confirm" your purchase will be available in your download queue in a few minutes. (click here to see why).  Then they move it to the download queue after they see the desired number of confirmations.

I think it all depends on the items being purchased and other circumstances specific to each industry and seller.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
October 21, 2013, 01:24:28 PM
#29
I know that if you try to send from Blockchain.info without a miner's fee you get a warning that if there are zero confirmations after 24 hours it will no longer be sent.  Danny, try for yourself if you don't believe me.

I know how blockchain.info works, I also know how the bitcoin protocol works.  You appear to only be aware of one of those two things.

As for acceptable risk, tell the average Wal-Mart shopper that not sending a miner's fee may lead to them getting to keep their money and see how many choose to pay the fee.

Tell the average Wal-mart shopper that they can report their credit card stolen, or pass a bad check, or manufacture some fake U.S. currency, or simply walk out with the merchandise without first paying for it and get to keep their money.  What's the difference?  Fraud is fraud, doesn't matter if it's with credit cards, counterfeit cash, paypal, checks, or bitcoin.

newbie
Activity: 22
Merit: 0
October 21, 2013, 01:10:38 PM
#28
Danny, if there is a way for the fee to be added, via the technology, so that when I send the BTC I cannot choose to not add the fee, then I will be happy to stand corrected.  I know that with blockchain.info I can choose not to add it.  It is entirely up to me, and if I say no, then it doesn't happen.  The person receiving the BTC has no say in it.  Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think that I am.  They can choose to not give me what I paid for until confirmation, but that is all.
Also, with Blockchain.info unconfirmed transactions get cancelled after 24 hours.
Thus, if I were to use that wallet to buy something at a store I could not pay the fee and I *might* get a free lunch.  
Zero confirmations is definitely not instant under these circumstances.  Zero confirmations simply means that the transaction may go through, and with no miner's fee paid there is a good chance it won't.

Nobody is denying that 0 confirmations is susceptible to fraud.

0 confirmations can be instant if the buyer sends the transaction through the sellers network, so that the seller can see the transaction.

Also, the seller can simply accept that the buyer has paid without proof. There are examples where trust is a reasonable risk. All of my direct bitcoin sales are 0 confirmation, and some people don't even bother to wait to see the transaction on the network.

I know that if you try to send from Blockchain.info without a miner's fee you get a warning that if there are zero confirmations after 24 hours it will no longer be sent.  Danny, try for yourself if you don't believe me.

As for acceptable risk, tell the average Wal-Mart shopper that not sending a miner's fee may lead to them getting to keep their money and see how many choose to pay the fee.  Yes, there is an acceptable level of risk, and then there is mass exodus from miner's fees.
legendary
Activity: 4466
Merit: 3391
October 21, 2013, 12:40:06 PM
#27
Danny, if there is a way for the fee to be added, via the technology, so that when I send the BTC I cannot choose to not add the fee, then I will be happy to stand corrected.  I know that with blockchain.info I can choose not to add it.  It is entirely up to me, and if I say no, then it doesn't happen.  The person receiving the BTC has no say in it.  Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think that I am.  They can choose to not give me what I paid for until confirmation, but that is all.
Also, with Blockchain.info unconfirmed transactions get cancelled after 24 hours.
Thus, if I were to use that wallet to buy something at a store I could not pay the fee and I *might* get a free lunch.  
Zero confirmations is definitely not instant under these circumstances.  Zero confirmations simply means that the transaction may go through, and with no miner's fee paid there is a good chance it won't.

Nobody is denying that 0 confirmations is susceptible to fraud.

0 confirmations can be instant if the buyer sends the transaction through the sellers network, so that the seller can see the transaction.

Also, the seller can simply accept that the buyer has paid without proof. There are examples where trust is a reasonable risk. All of my direct bitcoin sales are 0 confirmation, and some people don't even bother to wait to see the transaction on the network.
Pages:
Jump to: