|
Title: 0.3.20 is cheaper to run than 0.3.21 Post by: Alex Beckenham on May 23, 2011, 12:00:49 AM I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere on the forum but I couldn't find it.
I've found that 0.3.21 forces me to pay a 0.01 transaction fee pretty much EVERY time. But switching back to 0.3.20 still lets me do free transactions, so for now that's what I'll run whenever I need to send money. Title: Re: 0.3.20 is cheaper to run than 0.3.21 Post by: error on May 23, 2011, 12:05:49 AM I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere on the forum but I couldn't find it. I've found that 0.3.21 forces me to pay a 0.01 transaction fee pretty much EVERY time. But switching back to 0.3.20 still lets me do free transactions, so for now that's what I'll run whenever I need to send money. True. Though your free transactions also have to wait, and this could be several hours. In the past, the free transaction queue has stretched to days. This is supposedly fixed up on 0.3.22. Might want to try that out (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8894.0). Title: Re: 0.3.20 is cheaper to run than 0.3.21 Post by: theymos on May 23, 2011, 12:08:22 AM I'm still using 0.3.15. I haven't had any fee problems so far.
Title: Re: 0.3.20 is cheaper to run than 0.3.21 Post by: Alex Beckenham on May 23, 2011, 12:22:44 AM True. Though your free transactions also have to wait, and this could be several hours. In the past, the free transaction queue has stretched to days. Yep I realise some can take foooreveeeerrrrr, but if I need 'em to go fast I just attach a fee manually, then go back to 0.00 after the important send is done. Will try 22 once it's vetted and on bitcoin.org. Title: Re: 0.3.20 is cheaper to run than 0.3.21 Post by: BitterTea on May 23, 2011, 12:28:52 AM I'm still using 0.3.15. I haven't had any fee problems so far. Do you pay a fee by default or no? What's keeping you on .15 instead of upgrading? Title: Re: 0.3.20 is cheaper to run than 0.3.21 Post by: theymos on May 23, 2011, 12:39:19 AM Do you pay a fee by default or no? What's keeping you on .15 instead of upgrading? I don't pay a fee by default, though if there's any possibility that a send might create a large transaction, I'll add a fee manually. I don't find the features of later versions to be necessary for my usage. Unnecessary changes = insecurity and instability. My 0.3.15 client does not have 8333 forwarded to it: I run 0.3.19 (with a few added changes from later versions) on my Internet-facing client. I'm thinking that I might start publishing "stable" versions of 0.3.19 and 0.3.20 with bugfixes backported. Feature changes are happening way too fast. Title: Re: 0.3.20 is cheaper to run than 0.3.21 Post by: Littleshop on May 23, 2011, 12:49:59 AM I pay the fee .01 every time. I do not mind supporting the network. Currently it is six cents for most transactions. If I was sending under 1btc I would enjoy paying a smaller fee but that is not too important.
Title: Re: 0.3.20 is cheaper to run than 0.3.21 Post by: benjamindees on May 23, 2011, 10:08:52 AM Mine doesn't?
Quote Pay transaction fee: 0.00 Title: Re: 0.3.20 is cheaper to run than 0.3.21 Post by: gigabytecoin on May 23, 2011, 10:24:56 AM I pay the fee .01 every time. I do not mind supporting the network. Currently it is six cents for most transactions. If I was sending under 1btc I would enjoy paying a smaller fee but that is not too important. Fees should be calculated as a percentage if less than 100x the initial "minimum fee" is being sent imho. |