Topic: Transaction fee too high? - page 2. (Read 2766 times)

55 PH/s now. I think that he used 6 only as an example. Mining should always stay profitable, because as soon as a portion of miners leave the others get their share (and it's profitable again).

I thought it's 60 already not 6 phs

Not really.  Who says the exact amount of computing power used right now is the absolute minimum required to protect the network.  Say the subsidy cut occurred today and lets assume nothing else changes (miners don't become more efficient, avg fee doesn't go up, fiat price doesn't go up, and average number of tx doesn't go up).  Ok then half the miners quit and the network is secured by 3 PH/s instead of 6 PH/s.  Realistically anyone who could 51% attack a 3 PH/s network could do the same to a 6 PH/s network.   3 PH/s puts the possibility of an attack outside the abilities of all but three letter agencies of major nation states and 6 PH/s doesn't materially change that.   Now 30 PH/s or 300 PH/s might change that but not a mere doubling.

Well, the value of bitcoin also increased tenfold, so the fiat fee remained about the same. More importantly, the fiat value of the block reward increased the same way. So for the crisis to be averted, we have to hope that Bitcoin continues to grow tenfold every couple of years. I'd rather not have to rely on that.

I recall hearing the same exact thing around here in 2012 when the block reward was being cut from 50 BTC to 25 BTC.  Yet, oddly, the transaction fee today is one-tenth what it was back then.

Well, for mining to continue at current profit levels, the halving of the block reward has to be balanced by increase in total transaction fees. I'm not sure the growth by 2017 will match the loss of 12.5 BTC per block then, unless transaction fees increase a lot. I am wondering if we will have some kind of crisis then.

If we really want miners to make money with their mining rigs, the transaction fee has to be higher.

What most people fail to take into account, is that right now they are saying they all agree in a transaction fee. Yes it may be .5 cents per transaction right now. But thinking of it in terms of supply/demand. IF everyone is saying the Bitcoin network will 100x or 1000x in volume that will certainly increase the transaction fees needed for miners to mine.

So if you want to just normalize it, lets say transaction fees a few years from now will be 50 cents to 5 bucks per transaction. Which is obviously assuming BTC stays the same price as it is about right now. But at a certain point your transaction fees ARE going to go up, and anything sent through "free" transactions will most likely never get through. Like I have been saying, in the end BTC functions just like a bank. People are creating ETFs for BTC, stock exchanges, insurance programs, "vaults" for storage, loan programs, and all of the SAME EXACT THINGS THAT BANKS/STOCK MARKETS DO.

In the white paper on BTC it is admitted that BTC protocol does require fees once their is no BTC available(assuming people still use it and there is large volume), so miners can be sustained and transactions verified. The only problem is that these fees are going to start going up and hitting a lot sooner than most expect. BTC is becoming banking(due to 3rd parties hi-jacking it). In the end there will be a few large oligarchies who run everything to do with BTC and someone will be able to push through any change they feel like. Just saying.

Quote me now for future reference.

High-priority transactions in BTC-E charge a transaction fee of BTC0.0005 (Equivalent to $0.25). That is a bit high, I think. Especially when we have to withdraw small amounts like BTC0.01.

^^ that

If I had some Bitcoins I might complain

I think that keeping the fee around 1 cent is okay. There is no need to go lower than that.

Yes this happen to me in starting days I have many coins from faucets and they took too much fees from my wallet 

Usually as lower transaction you make the bigger fee you get just like on paypal?

OP was complaining but hope after reading all this now he satisfied about this

Well in comparison to normal fiat currency transfers we have a pretty low transaction fee. And, you can set the amount yourself so who's complaining?

I typically use a 0.00001 BTC fee (one hundredth of a milliBit) for transactions, always works fine. That's about half a ¢ent. And even lower works fine as well. This is not an issue anymore since Bitcoin Core 0.9 (in which the default fee policy was adjusted).

Without disputing any of your points as you make good ones, isnt this where off chain transactions can come into play for a regular reader ? 

Again though the issue is mainly miners in regards to the fee itself, I personally think that 25 bitcoins for creating a block is more than enough reward. Miners arent filing up there blocks as it is and so excluding transactions based on fee sent is silly until there really is a need to give priortiy to fee paying transactions due to ful blocks.

when it comes to media wanting to charge just a penny to read an article the problem is that regular readers whom may at first do free transactions due to low data, will find within a week all of those "change" addresses from previous article purchases are now causing their transactions to include more inputs. so yes an article can be free from fee's initially, but regular readers will find that the more often the spend the more it causes their next transaction to bloat. so please do not just say "its possible to send free tx's" without putting the issue into real life context first.

secondly these media companies that receive many micro transactions thn have the issue of transaction bloat due to trying to move all of the microtransactions.

which means that just buying an article costs the customer on purchase and costs the media company when they want to move their received funds.

this issue is not helping the fredom to move funds. it is incentivising people to hoard funds for many confirms to avoid virgin coin fee's. and avoid spending just to keep funds one one nice and neat pile. purely to avoid data bloat fee's

it is very apparent that Luke JR is greedy and implemented these non freedoms. as he also is trying to get people to use new addresses for every transaction. purely to create bloat.

what also adds to this greedy mindset, is the distancing away from mining is to verify/comfirm transactions in exchange for a bitcoin reward. into an area of knitpicking transactions and ignoring transactions purely to receive bitcoin fastest, not as a reward, but as compensation for wasted electric.

even the bitcoin wiki is admitting that instead of bitcoin being a free system of value exchange, it is a controlled system which is biased against certain transactions, in which the transactor has no freedom to just send a TX, they have to play to miners greedy and ego.


the fundamental idea of bitcoins and the purpose of blocks is for transactions. and as such bitcoin mining pools should not knit pick transactions. and then blackmail people to pay the fee or have their TX's delayed or ignored.

You technically don't need to pay any fees...


Especially when the transaction size is small (in regards to kb size not amount of BTC)

I also think that it would help if you clarify what a micro payment is, for example paypal I think classes anything under $12 as a micropayment.

The problem doesnt really lie within the protocol the main issue is greedy miners.

Floating fees will also help to keep the transaction fees very low, what you refer to is only an issue if you want to send a cent but the vast majority of the transactions are way above this.