Topic: We should be able to add fees after the transaction (Read 2509 times)

Bitcoin was designed for the long-term. In 10 years, this block reward will be 3.125BTC.

Let's forget about miners, rewards and fees...

The ability to add fee to a sent transaction is a nice idea. I have heard a similar suggestion elsewhere. It was called something like "child pays fee for parent"' or something like that. It is basically spending the output of the "stuck" transaction (parent) in a new transaction (child) with a big enough fee to cover both transactions.

I am not sure this solution is in the pipeline, or is still just a suggestion?

free for other people ? i am soo facepalming you right now

im all for profiting. but miners should profit properly... they get 25BTC block reward to share between them for their hard work. if the fiat value of their share is not enough. then instead of being brain dead and selling fast to cause a price dump (shooting themselves in the foot every 10 minutes) they should hoard their coin and cause demand to rise (price rise).

they should not shoot themselves in the foot trading at a loss and then demand every user pays them a tax to continue working.. thats not capitalism, thats stupidism

This. It actually works. If it doesn't work for you push it directly to eligius via their site. They will happily mine it for you.

That is a great suggestion. We can divide the transactions in to four categories:

1. Extremely Urgent: Free of 0.001 BTC
2. Urgent: 0.0005 BTC
3. Normal: 0.0001 BTC
4. No-Fee: 0 BTC

I find this a good idea.

I tried to donate some money to Hal Finney a couple of days back: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/andy-greenberg-raising-funds-for-hal-finney-552875
and with the new version of Bitcoin-qt I wasn't get asked for the fee so I just clicked send.

It took 6 hours to complete! 

So yeah if the devs can add this it would be good, though I doubt it as it sounds like a lot of work and I am guessing they have more important things to consider.

I don't think you would need to change the handling of the transaction pool. This could be done on the client.

And it wouldn't be strictly required that the coins go to the same outputs. For example, (at least) one of the outputs is a "change" address. The client implementation may want to create different change outputs in order to keep straight which transaction was mined.

My suggestion of an implementation would be this: The client should be able to show transactions that had confirmations (were in the transaction pool), but are not yet in the block chain.

The user would have the option to "increase the priority" of one of these transactions by increasing the transaction fee. Clearly, the extra fee would come from a "change" address, so it would need to keep track of those too, which I assume most already do.

It would re-issue the transaction using the same inputs (and mostly the same outputs). It would group the transactions together with a special flag that tells the user the transaction fee is not finalized. It should also prevent the user from spending anything from the change address.

When one of the transactions reaches the block chain, the client would delete the other one from the list, and mark this transaction as final.

Is there any reason why this wouldn't work?

Posts as wrong as this need to be deleted.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

All right, you can keep telling yourself that.

But when there's profit to be made by controlling/colluding with other people to control 51% of the network, it can and will happen.

Right now there's no upside to controlling 51% of the network, because if someone did that at this point in time it would just make btc collapse and they'd get nothing out of it. But at some point, if btc becomes mainstream (and that's a HUGE if), someone's going to control it. That someone might be the government, or a corporation, but it'll happen.

Most poeple who are anti-government are only like that because they believe the government already is f* everyone.

While there are some large mining operations there is still a lot of asic and hashing power maintained by independant individuals.

Yes, a lot of people are only in bitcoin to make money, but there are just as many people who realize the true value of bitcoin.  Not as in the currency bitcoin, but as in the major breakthrough in decentralized technology which can be implemented in many ways besides currency.

Bitcoin as a currency is still very desentralized, bitcoin as an concept is even more so.

Wasn't talking about you specifically. A lot of bitcoin "supporters" seem to be these anti-government/libertarian types (which IMO is NOT a good thing. being anti-government makes it far more likely the government will fuck with you).

The majority of ASIC miners aren't "supporting" a protocol they "believe" in. Those huge data centers were put together by businessmen who wanted to make a profit.

I know a lot of people here have these pipe dreams and view bitcoin through rose colored glasses and refuse to see the realities of it.

The reality is a small group of people have tremendous influence over bitcoin, and it's no longer decentralized at all.

To actually suceed they need significantly more than half the network, and like I said, if the top four pools threatened to do that, most miners would just switch pools.  Thus dramaticly reducing the hashing power of the pools and preventing the attack on the network.

First off, many people invested in GPU's as well to mine and made a profit.  Secondly, asic miners are profiting now and would still profit in the senario you described even if they choose not to support the currently four largest pools.

You seem to be missing the entire point of bitcoin, it is a bunch of decentralized people supporting a protocol they believe in.  That's the ONLY reason bitcoins have value.  Because a bunch of people value it and the protocol as a way to transfer and store wealth.

Really?  You couldn't make your point without trying to insult me?  Also, I'm not libertarian, read Richard J. Maybury if you want to understand what I really believe instead of trying to use an Argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

Bitcoin has no fees, unlike credit cards.

Yes, but let's say the top 4 pools say they're going to set these rules and orphan any blocks who don't follow those rules. Chances are those 4 pools will INCREASE in size. Because anyone NOT in those pools gets zero for their work. And who's going to be the first one to leave the pools to go join a pool that's not generating any BTC?

Remember, it's not people and their GPUs supporting a protocol they believe in (LOL, typical libertarian bullshit).

Only ASIC miners are relevant now, and the people who own them made an INVESTMENT to make a profit. If they have to deal with rules they don't like or agree with to make that profit, they will do so.

While four mining pools currently control 60% of the hashing power, I should point out that they are POOLS.  The mining power is still decentralized because if those pools did try to implement a mandatory fee the individual miners would still have the choice to switch to a different pool which didn't implement mandatory fees.  Even if all the current pools implemented a mandatory fee, miners could still mine solo or even create their own pools.  In fact pools increase decentralization because they allow small miners to add their hashing power to network.  Because miners can mine on whichever pool they choose, they can support the pools which implement the protocol they want to see used.  This all prevents big, cetralized mining companies from controling the network.

Summary: Large pools increase decentralization.

P.S. Was proofreading real quick and reallized the summary sounds really funny if taken out of context.
P.P.S. Again, apologies for any typos.

Adding trasactions to a block does not increase the time required to mine it.  

The miners are not charging fees, people are voluntarily adding fees to their transactions to decrease the time for their transaction to get into a block.  The protocol is design with a limited block space which limits blockchain size and spam transaction while creating a competitive market for block space.  This allows the miners to be paid and a service to be rendered.  If users could change their fees after they sent the coins before the transaction confirmed it would allow them a further choice to change how much they want to spend to increase their transaction priority.  This would free promote the free market of bitcoin trasactions.

P.S. How did we get so far off topic?

@ OP, This sounds like a very good idea.  I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement but I have an idea.  If the handling of the trasaction pool was changed so that if any transactions meeting the following criteria were found then it would drop the transaction with the lower fee.
1. The coins come from the same inputs.
2. The coins go to the same outputs
3. The amounts in the inputs and outputs are identical execpt for the difference due to the fee.
I reallize this wouldn't work in all cases, but it is a step to creating a working implementation of this idea.  Then all that's needed is to add a button/tab/etc in bitcoin core which allows the rebroadcasting of transactions with higher fees.

P.P.S. Sorry about any typos, was typing in a rush.

EDIT: Ment to add this to backup my argument.  It explains how fees and priority affect whether a transaction is included in the next block.  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

Ok, so I dunno maybe qt 1.0.0 will have this implemented

Right, if it's decentralized and you don't include the tx to pick up the fees, someone else will.

The fact that there's only a few organizations that run the network, they can come together and agree on rules.

Right now miners DON'T have incentive to do this, because they benefit more by making btc more popular and having the price go up.

But at some point it's going to be more profitable to force heavy fees onto people to use the network.

The big miners are essentially visa/mastercard. They control the network and have the ability to set fees.

That's a good point. If mining were more decentralized, then transaction fees would tend to settle on a market price, as it could be more profitable for a minor to accept a larger number of transactions with small fees, than a few with large fees.

At the present time, minors don't really care about transaction fees, because 99% of their income comes from the block reward.

Time actually increases the problem.

The lower the block reward, the more in Tx fees are needed to make up the difference. When the block reward's lower, miners will be more likely to force people to pay Tx fees, and high ones.

The top 4 mining pools (who control 60% of the hash power) could come together right now and say we're charging a 2% transaction fee. Pay it or your Tx will be declined. If other miners accept Txes that don't pay the fee, your block will be declined and orphaned.

This couldn't happen with a decentralized currency, but the fact is bitcoin is very centralized.