Topic: Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9 - page 16. (Read 60438 times)

Then you can easily game it by always including a small output back to yourself.
At which point the only fee paid is a flat 0.001 BTC (per KB) which is why I was saying % based fees will not work.
Fees need to be per KB not per input as that is the critical resource.

Is that a behaviour from the standard client or is it enforced by the protocol?

Obviously to make these x% fees possible that would have to go. Or you'd be optionally paying an x% obfuscation fee.

just corrected it... please replace input with output

So if (to use the same example above) I am paying 1 BTC from 100 BTC input I pay 5BTC in fees to pay you 1 BTC?

Yeah that is going to be popular.

You are missing something.

Bitcoin doesn't send it back to the same address.  To obfuscate transactions the "change" is sent to a new address.

Take a look at the example provided.  

http://blockchain.info/tx-index/3486210/f6f4e145a09ad579cacae3d889323054868a3acf10262ec4ae5c2132fd37365e

Input address:
1Dv86AccHGjTJwKQtnqoN57T1CwCH4wZ9p  4.79 BTC (a prior transaction output)

Output Addresses:
1Kae15Czf2s8FCRhFJ7QoXuRsPqT3a6pD4  1.775 BTC (likely the amount spent/transfered)
1AGK35na7rvgHS9vvG3RyE4VGvUerDbMH1 3.0169 BTC (likely the "change" address)

what about this variation:
 - 5% fee on smallest output
 - 0.001btc per outputif there are more than two output.

this would also give an incentive for small transactions (in bytes) which is good for the network

edit: replaces input with output

Obviously the part that goes back to the same address would be deducted. I think that's pretty trivial to implement... but maybe I'm missing something.

As a miner, you wouldn't include in your block transactions that don't pass that test: 1% of inputs (deducting the output to the same address). I was simply assuming that you are spending the whole input and the difference is just the fee, but you can correct that to reflect exactly what's going on low-level.

Does that sound right?

EDIT: to nitpick, it would have to add up all inputs and deduct all outputs to addresses in that input list.

If you buy a bread at the supermarket for $1 but you have a $100 bill and the tax on the bread is 6%, is it fair to pay $6 tax on the bread?
You probably say no, but thats different because you put $99 back in you wallet.
But to make bitcoin more anonymous you transfer the $100 from one wallet to 2 new wallets, one with $1 for the supermarket and one with $99 still for you.
So if you have 2 wallets, one with $100 bill and one empty and buy the bread and put the $99 change in you other new wallet, do you have to pay $6 taxes?

The 99 BTC is going back to me.

You do understand that you can't spend part of an input right?

Scenario:
1) I have a wallet w/ a single address cointaing 100 BTC as a single prior output.
2) Fee is 1% of inputs
3) I owe you 1 BTC.
4) The only possible transaction is one where input = 100 BTC, outputs = 1 BTC (to you) & 99 BTC (returned to me)
5) The fee is 1% of 100 BTC = 1 BTC.

My effective fee is 100% of what I am trying to spend.

While your right it is technically a 100 BTC transaction no non-nerd is going to see it that way.  The avg user will see it as "I have 100 BTC I want to pay muyuu 1 BTC and it will cost be 2 BTC = 100% fee.  Fuck Bitcoin it is 50x more expensive than Paypal".

A realistic example:
http://blockchain.info/tx-index/3486210/f6f4e145a09ad579cacae3d889323054868a3acf10262ec4ae5c2132fd37365e

Unless the sender had the need to send exactly 1.775 to one person and 3.0169 to another person, at the same time, and just so happened to have an input worth exactly 4.7924 (not more, not less) the odds are the transaction ISN'T for 4.79 BTC despite it having a 4.79 BTC input.

Most likely (based on the amounts) the person is paying someone 1.775 BTC.  If the fee was 1% of the input his EFFECTIVE FEE would be 2.7%.  If his smallest input was 49 BTC it would be a 27% effective fee.  If his smallest input was 490 BTC it would be an 270% effective fee.  If his smallest input was 4,900 BTC it would be an 2,700% effective fee.  If his smallest input was 49,000 BTC it would be an 27,000% effective fee ....

If there is a 100BTC input and you are paying me 1BTC then there are 99BTC going somewhere else. you'd pay 1BTC for the total. In other words, the transaction is 100BTC not 1BTC, you are making several monetary exchanges within the same transaction.

I don't know what do you imply here. If you have 100 BTC in inputs, then the transaction is not 1BTC any way you put it.

So I want to pay you 1 BTC.  The smallest input I have is 100 BTC.  On a 1 BTC payment if the fee was 1% I would pay 1 BTC fee (on 100 BTC input) for a 1 BTC transaction.

"cheaper than paypal, except when the fee is 100%"?

I'm not 100% sure, but I think it is done this way :

If you mine a block you have 50 BTC on an address.
If you want to pay someone 1 BTC the 50 BTC is split up to 1 and 49 BTC and send to 2 different addresses. The 1 BTC to the person you send it to, and the 49 BTC to a new address owned by you.
The network doesn't know if you just sent 1 BTC to someone and kept 49 yourself or 49 BTC to someone and you kept 1 BTC.
It is done this way to stay more anonymous.

If the rule would be to pay 1% of all inputs, in this case 1% off 50 BTC, 0.5 BTC you would actually pay a little over 1% if you pay 49 BTC or you would pay 50% (very much) if you just pay the 1 BTC.

I don't think I understand what the problem is here.

Surely x% of every input? the fee would be paid by the entity making the transaction. x% of every input = x% of the sum of the inputs. In other words the outputs would have to add up to at most (100-x)% of the inputs.

deepceleron, when you argue higher transaction fees, you sound like a greedy banker, making up all this crap to support your bonus payments.

just wait for the block reward to drop, fees will effectively double at that point.

That is a good point. If you have 1000 BTC in one address and you want to send 10 BTC to someone, you have to send the whole amount and get change back. However you are still sending a 1000 BTC input.

The Bitcoin client does not encourage accumulation of large balances in one address though. It automatically gives you a new address to use for incoming payments (or at least it did before the 0.5 changes). For the bit-rich, it may be advisable to examine where your money is in the face of such a change, and multi-send your mega-balance to 10 other addresses at one go, or create spending accounts and savings accounts.

The Bitcoin client could manage such multi-address balances even better for the minimization of fees; we already know it ignores age, and tries to assemble a transaction that results in the smallest change from the existing address balances in the wallet. Sending change to multiple addresses in a graduated fashion (ie, your change is 500,250,125,62 from the 1000BTC input above), informed by the amounts currently in the wallet addresses, may prepare your wallet for lower percentage fee sending in the future.

I don't see a better way though, a per-transaction fee would currently have to be excessively high for the desired significant contribution to block rewards, punishing small payments and small balance holders unfairly.

I did. Every single post in this thread.
Maybe you should stop and try to comprehend what you are saying.

It's just moronic to ruin whole bitcoin network over a single miner not accepting TXs in their blocks. They are irrelevant. If they are attacking the network by doing this, you are just adding fuel to his attack on bitcoin.

If it were up to people who demand TX fees, demand rejection of no TX blocks etc. bitcoin would be dead, never gaining mass adoption.

You guys underestimate the free market, and the good will of people. People like gifting by nature, it usually benefits also the giver aswell. but in case of bitcoin TX fees you are also gaining something directly, a service. so most will include them (i've always included a TX fee myself).

You guys keep on insisting for stupid stuff to the detriment of bitcoin. (Those demanding action against MM by changing the protocol)

% fees are not possible (or more correctly accurate) because the network has no idea what the amount of the transaction is.

I want to send you 5 BTC.  1% fee = 0.05 BTC.  No problem right?

Well my input is 32 BTC.  So is it 1% of 32 BTC? =0.32 BTC fee?
The outputs are 5 BTC and 27 BTC (change)?  Is it 1% of the larger output, 1% of the smallest output, or 1% of the average output, or 1% of sum of the outputs?

In a typical 24h period, over 500,000 BTC is currently being transferred. 7200 BTC in 144 block generations are being produced. An average of 3500BTC is transferred per block. And about 25 BTC total per day are being paid in transaction fees. From this thread, we see we may want transactions fees sizeable enough to encourage inclusion of transactions in blocks, to make someone only interested in profit reconsider their wholesale omission of transactions.

A transaction fee is rarely required now, with so many old coins on the mature network. You can let 5 BTC sit in your wallet for a few days and you can spend them without fee. The current fees are only an anti-spam method, enforced only for small transfers of recently transferred coins, and will do little to eventually supplant mining rewards.

First, we may want to revert to the original Satoshi client's fees for low-priority transactions (and set a future block in the client where the old rules will again be enforced for relay and mining). It looks like the change to 0.0005 BTC per KB fees (v0.3.23) was unenlightened.  When the fee change was made, Bitcoin had a price trajectory that looked like this:



Secondly, I think it is time to also consider a percentage transaction fee.

A mandatory fee, to encourage inclusion of transactions in blocks beyond the anti-spam measures, is probably desireable, to the point where it becomes a not insignificant amount per block. 5 BTC per block or better may achieve this goal. To target 5BTC per block, by evaluating recent transaction history, this percentage would only be 0.14%. A percentage will not discourage microtransactions (developing nations, etc), and may be accompanied by the minimum fee, or only take effect for amounts above the minimum fee.

We know also that the mining reward will drop to 25 BTC by December. If we want to encourage blockchain difficulty to have the same resistance to attack it does now, knowing that Bitcoin isn't going to magically take over the world, we should strive to put transaction fees on a course to supplement and eventually replace coin generation, as we know will be required. Right now, if we consider 25BTC from fees to be the target for the next four years (replacing the 25BTC mining reward), we need to look at a rate similar to the percentage mentioned above.

Fees may reduce the amount of daily transfers, but this will also discourage the blockchain bloat we are currently experiencing (1GB to 1.5GB in four months). I've got a feeling much of that 500,000 BTC a day is moving around just because it is free...

You really should have read the whole thread.  Or at least my posts in it, because everything you said is garbage and has been addressed repeatedly in the past.