Topic: Why not FIX the Transaction Fee? (Read 1440 times)

~snipped~

2. if the way you are proposing was used, not a single big transaction would have been mined. because a miner simply sees 2 transactions: a big one (lets say 2500 bytes) and another small one (250 bytes) both paying the same fixed fee. the miner would obviously choose 10 of the small ones to get 10 fixed fees instead of 1 big one and get 1 fixed fee.

You can't say that Bitcoin is a ponzi, because the person who invented Bitcoin (Satoshi Nakamoto) never profited out of it.

here is one example - not perfect. but think about it
imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. (reasonable expectation)
where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise..

which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding/day trading every 1-10 minutes)

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor(like the old one was) but about reducing respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.(thats what CLTV does)

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain ($0.01).
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more ($0.44)
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price($1.44)
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending EVERY BLOCK you pay the ultimate price($63.72)

note this is not perfect. but think about it

Bitcoin is quickly turning into a Tulip Bulb Mania / Brilliantly Crafted Ponzi.  

I think the transaction fee is fixed but because too many transactions are long not get confirmed then there is the increase transaction fee.

Transaction fees are fine as is. You want to fix something that's not broken. What need addressing is scaling...

You can't say that Bitcoin is a ponzi, because the person who invented Bitcoin (Satoshi Nakamoto) never profited out of it.

Waiting for the confirmation of every transaction has been a headache to us bitcoin users. And in order to avoid a long wait, higher fee is required which adds to our headache, well who would want to pay more just to gain priority, right? We just gain priority in paying more but we lose Bitcoin on the other hand. I have suggestion in mind that I really don't know if it is applicable or not. Suggestions are always welcome, right?

1. Why not make the transaction fee be fixed? Regardless of the size of transaction in byte. So if the transaction fee is equal to all transaction, some greedy miners would follow a First In, First Out. No priority. All equal.

OR

2. A fixed transaction fee which is proportional to the size in bytes. Example 100 Satoshi/Byte no more, no less. The fee will be fixed and no one can add fee to gain priority. Seems fair.

So what do you think?

I think the transaction fee is fixed but because too many transactions are long not get confirmed then there is the increase transaction fee.

Bitcoin is quickly turning into a Tulip Bulb Mania / Brilliantly Crafted Ponzi.