well maybe i'm just complaining then. Here was my real life example that made me start this post.
I sent two people .50 bitcoins each
The fee was 0.05...
thats 5%
Also,
I had to give up 2.5% to mining pool who sold the bitcoins
I had to pay .65% to mtgox to convert dollars into bitcoins
so i'm paying 8.15% in fees to spend 1 bitcoin?? I don't fully understand the fee structure so it seemed excessive.
Topic: Who pays transaction fees - page 4. (Read 6778 times)
We can sell yo mama's hair piece for transaction fees. It'll get one or two...especially with the "crust"...or we can make orphans shoe-shine for it. Either way, it gets paid and everyone walks away a winner.
No problem. Write your own client.
As to who pays the fee. The originator of a transaction pays it. But as the previous poster mentioned, it could also be deducted from the amount of the transaction, hence the receiver would always pay it. But keep in mind, if you receive coins you'd pay it. So if I'm paying you to do work for me, they would get deducted from your pay.
At that point you'll argue the employer should pay them.
So you're really arguing that YOU shouldnt pay them.
As to who pays the fee. The originator of a transaction pays it. But as the previous poster mentioned, it could also be deducted from the amount of the transaction, hence the receiver would always pay it. But keep in mind, if you receive coins you'd pay it. So if I'm paying you to do work for me, they would get deducted from your pay.
At that point you'll argue the employer should pay them.
So you're really arguing that YOU shouldnt pay them.
I just want fee transparency. You should be able to see the fee as you choose how much to send in the send payment box. It should update dynamically as new fee amounts are entered, and calculate it properly from the coins you own. What you see is what you'll pay/ by default, but you should be able to modify the fee if you accept a warning.
Well said, and I agree and acknowledge the fact that it is the same no matter which party you charge mathematically, the product would cost the same amount.
I now quote from the white paper from satoshi
if the output is less then the input
then
excess = fee
Now it doesn't say who specifically who pays the fee here. It only states that the fee gets taken from the difference of A and B.
So was this decision that the buyer pays the fee made after "careful consideration" of the impact vs seller paying it or was it just arbitrary?
Any of the coders who put the transaction fees in place originally thing have anything to say about that?
I now quote from the white paper from satoshi
Quote
If the output value of a transaction is
less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of
the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered
circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation
free.
less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of
the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered
circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation
free.
if the output is less then the input
then
excess = fee
Now it doesn't say who specifically who pays the fee here. It only states that the fee gets taken from the difference of A and B.
So was this decision that the buyer pays the fee made after "careful consideration" of the impact vs seller paying it or was it just arbitrary?
Any of the coders who put the transaction fees in place originally thing have anything to say about that?
1) long term does it make more sense to punish the people spending the BTC.
Is $0.25 really a "punishment"?2) long term does it make more sense to punish the merchants who receive the BTC.
The only way this could work is have the money deducted from the payment. Now merchants have to charge 0.01 btc more (0.005 in the future).In my humble opinion serious consideration should be taken to that question. Most merchants are used to paying fees to accept money, thats how all credit card processing companies work right now.
Actually, I would love for the CUSTOMER to pay the fees. If i pay cash, and the merchant doens't have to pay fees, why should i pay extra?It can also be said that customers are used to paying fees to spend money. But I tell you, my personal feeling on this subject which I'm sure many of you can also share with me...
paying fees at atms and credit cards = its a fucking rip off, I hate it. I only do it because I have no other option and i forgot to get cash out of the bank.
You're already spending money when you're buying something. is 0.01 really going to make a big difference? paying fees at atms and credit cards = its a fucking rip off, I hate it. I only do it because I have no other option and i forgot to get cash out of the bank.
I understand why we need transaction fees.
The question is assuming its technically possible to make the receiver getting the fee exactly the same as the sender paying the fee, then the question becomes:
1) long term does it make more sense to punish the people spending the BTC.
or
2) long term does it make more sense to punish the merchants who receive the BTC.
I agree someone has to pay it.
In my humble opinion serious consideration should be taken to that question. Most merchants are used to paying fees to accept money, thats how all credit card processing companies work right now.
It can also be said that customers are used to paying fees to spend money. But I tell you, my personal feeling on this subject which I'm sure many of you can also share with me...
paying fees at atms and credit cards = its a fucking rip off, I hate it. I only do it because I have no other option and i forgot to get cash out of the bank.
I say, put the fees on the merchants. It should be 100% equivalent to do this rather then charge the payers for any technical reasons such as spamming prevention and what not. Please educate me if i'm wrong about this.
Yes my argument is about 90% psychological in nature...
The question is assuming its technically possible to make the receiver getting the fee exactly the same as the sender paying the fee, then the question becomes:
1) long term does it make more sense to punish the people spending the BTC.
or
2) long term does it make more sense to punish the merchants who receive the BTC.
I agree someone has to pay it.
In my humble opinion serious consideration should be taken to that question. Most merchants are used to paying fees to accept money, thats how all credit card processing companies work right now.
It can also be said that customers are used to paying fees to spend money. But I tell you, my personal feeling on this subject which I'm sure many of you can also share with me...
paying fees at atms and credit cards = its a fucking rip off, I hate it. I only do it because I have no other option and i forgot to get cash out of the bank.
I say, put the fees on the merchants. It should be 100% equivalent to do this rather then charge the payers for any technical reasons such as spamming prevention and what not. Please educate me if i'm wrong about this.
Yes my argument is about 90% psychological in nature...
It's a transaction fee, and you're the one conducting the transaction. It could happen to you just moving money between your own accounts.
Why a transaction fee? Because without it, eventually no one would mine, and if there are no miners then no transactions will be confirmed. If transactions aren't confirmed, then there is no Bitcoin commerce.
Think of it as a tax to keep everything running.
Why a transaction fee? Because without it, eventually no one would mine, and if there are no miners then no transactions will be confirmed. If transactions aren't confirmed, then there is no Bitcoin commerce.
Think of it as a tax to keep everything running.
One of the purposes of the fees is to avoid spam on the network. If you made the recipient pay, anyone could drain someone's balance by spamming them with empty transactions, each one taking 0.01 from the victim's balance.
Because telling you that you have to pay a fee is better than sending a tx with ammount-fee. but seriously, really? is 0.01 (0.005 later) btc that much?
apple is $1.30. But for each purchase, there's a $0.30 credit card fee. So the price of the apple is really $1.00, and the $0.30 is the credit card fee. Sure, it sounds better to pay $1.30 than $1.00 + $0.30 fee, but both are exactly the same.
In every other single currency system on the planet that I can think of ever using, the person gets paid takes the hit.
Why do we do it backwards? Was this intentional or just a fun way to make people hoarding instinct kick in to overdrive?
consider this, next time you go to the supermarket.Why do we do it backwards? Was this intentional or just a fun way to make people hoarding instinct kick in to overdrive?
apple is $1.30. But for each purchase, there's a $0.30 credit card fee. So the price of the apple is really $1.00, and the $0.30 is the credit card fee. Sure, it sounds better to pay $1.30 than $1.00 + $0.30 fee, but both are exactly the same.
Is it just me or is the current system backwards...
Currently, the person who is paying is prompted to pay a fee. Naturally my cheap ass thinks OMG i have to pay a fee to pay this guy... I'm going to wait grumble grumble.
In every other single currency system on the planet that I can think of ever using, the person gets paid takes the hit.
Why do we do it backwards? Was this intentional or just a fun way to make people hoarding instinct kick in to overdrive?
Currently, the person who is paying is prompted to pay a fee. Naturally my cheap ass thinks OMG i have to pay a fee to pay this guy... I'm going to wait grumble grumble.
In every other single currency system on the planet that I can think of ever using, the person gets paid takes the hit.
Why do we do it backwards? Was this intentional or just a fun way to make people hoarding instinct kick in to overdrive?
Jump to: