We should be able to add fees after the transaction - page 2.

StevenS

full member

Activity: 206

Merit: 100

Quote from: DobZombie on April 02, 2014, 01:11:02 PM

The block reward is what miners get paid to process transactions. fees are just icing on the cake.

That is true today, a quick scan of a few recent blocks show that transaction fees are about 1/200 of the block reward.
However, the block reward will decrease in the future, and presumably the transaction fees (per block) will increase, to the point where they will become a significant part.

In other words, time will eventually solve this problem.

Nagle

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Quote from: franky1 on April 02, 2014, 11:28:36 AM

Blocks are only on average 10% filled.

Transaction volume is about the same as it was a year ago. The number of transactions has been around 65,000/day for the last year. Right now, it's almost exactly where it was a year ago.

The use of Bitcoin is not increasing.

FeedbackLoop

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Do take into consideration that space itself in the blockchain is also a limited resource and fees contribute to keep it civil while storage and bandwidth catch up. Miners have an incentive to keep block size sane as big blocks have a higher chance of being orphaned.

Make sure to re-use the same outputs when resending that transaction with fees otherwise the old tx might get confirmed later and then you sent double the amount. (I don't know how as I never ended up in that situation :p).

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: franky1 on April 02, 2014, 11:28:36 AM

blocks are only on average 10% filled. we should NOT be changing the protocol to feed greedy miners.

they are already denying transactions to force fee's. we should STOP that practice.

miners jobs are to process transactions. the REWARD is their wage. miners should not deny transactions because that should NOT be their job, and they should definitely NOT be given a bonus ( a fee ) as a prize for their practices.

Mine on a pool that supports the fee structure you like. There are pools that allow more free transactions and ones that allow less.

The point of fees is to reduce transaction SPAM. It does work as intended and (non required) fees are now well under 1/10 of one percent for most transactions.

skooter

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: DobZombie on April 02, 2014, 01:11:02 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on April 02, 2014, 11:42:53 AM

Quote from: franky1 on April 02, 2014, 11:28:36 AM

blocks are only on average 10% filled. we should NOT be changing the protocol to feed greedy miners.

they are already denying transactions to force fee's. we should STOP that practice.

miners jobs are to process transactions. the REWARD is their wage. miners should not deny transactions because that should NOT be their job, and they should definitely NOT be given a bonus ( a fee ) as a prize for their practices.

This is pretty much the only response so far that sounds intelligent.
I agree 100%. It's like a waiter/waitress refusing to serve you because you are a bad tipper. This would be okay, except
that this isn't the food industry. Transactions should all have equal priority.

Maybe all future blocks should meet the following conditions ( as well as current protocols) to be a valid block...
if there are >250kb worth of unconfirmed transactions
then block size must (roughly) equal 250kb

it's as simple as that. Why aren't we enforcing that? The miner's fee was meant to reward miners once the network got really popular and busy.
As opposed to the miners sending small blocks so they get in there first with the valid block.

You can easily fill up a block with 250 KB worth of your own transactions rather then accept feeless transactions from other people.

A lot of people are also making assumptions that may apply if mining is decentralized, but fact is, there's 4 major players who control the majority of the hash power of the network.

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on April 02, 2014, 01:14:52 PM

Quote from: skooter on April 02, 2014, 01:06:57 PM

Quote from: franky1 on April 02, 2014, 11:28:36 AM

blocks are only on average 10% filled. we should NOT be changing the protocol to feed greedy miners.

they are already denying transactions to force fee's. we should STOP that practice.

miners jobs are to process transactions. the REWARD is their wage. miners should not deny transactions because that should NOT be their job, and they should definitely NOT be given a bonus ( a fee ) as a prize for their practices.

It's capitalism at work.

If bitcoin actually grew big, you can bet your ass there'd be visa/mastercards of the bitcoin world charging a % transaction fee or they'll reject it.

Miners jobs are to make money for themselves. Nobody invested millions into mining hardware to process transactions for free for other people. Get your facts straight. I understand you're one of the delusional ones who doesn't see the realities of the world, but this is it.

How could you possibly say that it would miners would be doing this "for free"? Most of their profit comes from the block rewards, not the fees.

Yes, and to claim the block reward you don't need to include any transactions. Including feeless transactions is working for free.

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: skooter on April 02, 2014, 01:06:57 PM

Quote from: franky1 on April 02, 2014, 11:28:36 AM

blocks are only on average 10% filled. we should NOT be changing the protocol to feed greedy miners.

they are already denying transactions to force fee's. we should STOP that practice.

miners jobs are to process transactions. the REWARD is their wage. miners should not deny transactions because that should NOT be their job, and they should definitely NOT be given a bonus ( a fee ) as a prize for their practices.

It's capitalism at work.

If bitcoin actually grew big, you can bet your ass there'd be visa/mastercards of the bitcoin world charging a % transaction fee or they'll reject it.

Miners jobs are to make money for themselves. Nobody invested millions into mining hardware to process transactions for free for other people. Get your facts straight. I understand you're one of the delusional ones who doesn't see the realities of the world, but this is it.

How could you possibly say that it would miners would be doing this "for free"? Most of their profit comes from the block rewards, not the fees.

DobZombie

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 532

Former curator of The Bitcoin Museum

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on April 02, 2014, 11:42:53 AM

Quote from: franky1 on April 02, 2014, 11:28:36 AM

blocks are only on average 10% filled. we should NOT be changing the protocol to feed greedy miners.

they are already denying transactions to force fee's. we should STOP that practice.

miners jobs are to process transactions. the REWARD is their wage. miners should not deny transactions because that should NOT be their job, and they should definitely NOT be given a bonus ( a fee ) as a prize for their practices.

This is pretty much the only response so far that sounds intelligent.
I agree 100%. It's like a waiter/waitress refusing to serve you because you are a bad tipper. This would be okay, except
that this isn't the food industry. Transactions should all have equal priority.

Maybe all future blocks should meet the following conditions ( as well as current protocols) to be a valid block...
if there are >250kb worth of unconfirmed transactions
then block size must (roughly) equal 250kb

it's as simple as that. Why aren't we enforcing that? The miner's fee was meant to reward miners once the network got really popular and busy.
As opposed to the miners sending small blocks so they get in there first with the valid block.

Quote from: skooter on April 02, 2014, 01:06:57 PM

Nobody invested millions into mining hardware to process transactions for free for other people. Get your facts straight. I understand you're one of the delusional ones who doesn't see the realities of the world, but this is it.

The block reward is what miners get paid to process transactions. fees are just icing on the cake.

skooter

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: franky1 on April 02, 2014, 11:28:36 AM

blocks are only on average 10% filled. we should NOT be changing the protocol to feed greedy miners.

they are already denying transactions to force fee's. we should STOP that practice.

miners jobs are to process transactions. the REWARD is their wage. miners should not deny transactions because that should NOT be their job, and they should definitely NOT be given a bonus ( a fee ) as a prize for their practices.

It's capitalism at work.

If bitcoin actually grew big, you can bet your ass there'd be visa/mastercards of the bitcoin world charging a % transaction fee or they'll reject it.

Miners jobs are to make money for themselves. Nobody invested millions into mining hardware to process transactions for free for other people. Get your facts straight. I understand you're one of the delusional ones who doesn't see the realities of the world, but this is it.

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: franky1 on April 02, 2014, 11:28:36 AM

blocks are only on average 10% filled. we should NOT be changing the protocol to feed greedy miners.

they are already denying transactions to force fee's. we should STOP that practice.

miners jobs are to process transactions. the REWARD is their wage. miners should not deny transactions because that should NOT be their job, and they should definitely NOT be given a bonus ( a fee ) as a prize for their practices.

This is pretty much the only response so far that sounds intelligent.
I agree 100%. It's like a waiter/waitress refusing to serve you because you are a bad tipper. This would be okay, except
that this isn't the food industry. Transactions should all have equal priority.

romang

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on April 02, 2014, 11:22:50 AM

The transaction can be unconfirmed but still show up on most of the network, in which case the client wont let you send the same amount again. No?

Yes this i believe is true.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

blocks are only on average 10% filled. we should NOT be changing the protocol to feed greedy miners.

they are already denying transactions to force fee's. we should STOP that practice.

miners jobs are to process transactions. the REWARD is their wage. miners should not deny transactions because that should NOT be their job, and they should definitely NOT be given a bonus ( a fee ) as a prize for their practices.

DobZombie

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 532

Former curator of The Bitcoin Museum

It would be GREAT to just have a button under TRANSACTIONS that would allow the addition of a fee.

or even another tab called FEES. Under this you could input the transaction number so you could add a fee after the fact.

This transaction wouldn't have to be a transaction of our own even!

How many time have you guys been expecting a transaction that never arrives ( or takes days?) Wouldn't it be great if you could add a fee to make it quicker?

I know a lot of people whinge about this sorta thing, but couldn't we just do it? I mean if we can waste code on transaction mailability, why can't we make something useful like this happen?

Also, in before "why don't you do it yourself, bitcoin is open source blah blah blah" Tongue

I can't code for shit Cheesy

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: lassdas on April 02, 2014, 11:15:56 AM

Wrong.

And what's with people who respond with "Wrong" as a stand alone sentence. Is this a game show? Do I get to try again??

grifferz

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: lassdas on April 02, 2014, 11:15:56 AM

If a transaction isn't confirmed (yet), no coins have been sent,
if no coins have been sent, you don't need 2x the amount to begin with, 1x is enough. Wink

Of course you probably need access to some sort of debug console for your wallet to send a raw transaction to do this, but then again, you probably needed to do something out of the ordinary to send a transaction with not enough fees to begin with.

IMHO the wallet should prevent you from doing that in its default user interface and only allow something like that in a more advanced / debug mode.

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

The transaction can be unconfirmed but still show up on most of the network, in which case the client wont let you send the same amount again. No?

lassdas

legendary

Activity: 3676

Merit: 1495

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on April 02, 2014, 10:58:46 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on April 02, 2014, 10:51:10 AM

You can already do that. Send the transaction again using the the same outputs and add a bigger fee. One of them will be confirmed and the other will be rejected as a double-spend.

This is assuming you have 2x the amount to begin with. If 1x is all you have, you won't be able to send the transaction again.

Wrong.

Read again, it says "send the transaction again using the the same outputs".

If a transaction isn't confirmed (yet), no coins have been sent,
if no coins have been sent, you don't need 2x the amount to begin with, 1x is enough. Wink

BigBoy89

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1011

i am using multibit to send BTC
they always give proper fee for transaction, never happen too low fee conditions
but when i use blockchain and custom send, i usually give too low fee, making it slow confirmation by the network

Quote from: odolvlobo on April 02, 2014, 10:51:10 AM

You can already do that. Send the transaction again using the the same outputs and add a bigger fee. One of them will be confirmed and the other will be rejected as a double-spend.

never try something like this
i wanna try send to my own BTC to test

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: roslinpl on April 02, 2014, 10:50:50 AM

But it would be too hard to implement. You will have to edit existing transaction during time of waiting for confirmations...

Just add some more fee while sending at first and that's it.
And no change needed

Please show me link to time machine. How do I do this..
If I came in here with an idea for bandaids, you would be the first idiot to jump in and say "well dont get hurt in the first place and you wont ever need one!"..

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: odolvlobo on April 02, 2014, 10:51:10 AM

You can already do that. Send the transaction again using the the same outputs and add a bigger fee. One of them will be confirmed and the other will be rejected as a double-spend.

This is assuming you have 2x the amount to begin with. If 1x is all you have, you won't be able to send the transaction again.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4522

Merit: 3426

You can already do that. Send the transaction again using the the same outputs and add a bigger fee. One of them will be confirmed and the other will be rejected as a double-spend.

Topic: We should be able to add fees after the transaction - page 2. (Read 2512 times)