My preferred behaviour for a wallet, would be that it asks me every single time what fee I want to pay. Thus if I'm just doing a "wallet maintenance" shuffle and don't care how long it takes, no tx fee, then if I want "same day" service pay regular fee, if I think my TX is super important and want preferential treatment I should find it easy to add fees as I see fit.


One thing that would be good though, is if wallet could report the average fees and number of TX for the last block. Then if you saw fees were high and TX were high, you'd know that network was "busy" and you'd have the option of matching high fees to get priority or being content with waiting it out.

The wallet code in the next major release of Bitcoin Core (version 0.10) will be much smarter about transaction fees.

Instead of using hard-coded rules for what fees to pay, the code observes how long transactions are taking to confirm and then uses that data to estimate the right fee to pay so the transaction confirms quickly– or decides that the transaction has a high enough priority to be sent for free but still confirm quickly.

There is a new option that lets you control how quickly you’d like your transactions to confirm: txconfirmtarget. The default value is 1, meaning “I’d like my transactions to be sent with enough fee or priority so they are very likely to be included in the next block.” Set it to 6 and it will take on average six blocks for your transactions to get their first confirmation.

So what are we waiting to celebrate ?

Out of curiosity.
Even when setting the tx fee to 0 in settings (bitcoin core client), when sending a payment I get a similar popup.

Yes - Send transaction and pay fee
Cancel - Cancel transaction

How is it then "optional" to pay the fee? There doesn't seem to be a way around it.

Man, I cant believe it's going to be 5 years already.

It's the only way to give something to the community in which you live in. So why shouldn't you?

And I have a feeling it will be like this at least for the next couple of months.

Although, I've been involved in BTC for several years now, so I'm over the price thing. If you look at the bigger picture and realize what BTC can bring to the table, price is hardly part of the equation.

Unless of course you're in it only for the speculative aspect, purely for the profit like majority of the people are.

The main idea is to crowdfund business and rather than give money to charity, they give it to bitcoin deletion to help the small owners of bitcoin, the poor.  The Walmart foundation gave $1.3 billion to charity in 2013.   $1.3 billion at current prices could destroy 3 million coins.  I presently own 10 bitcoin.  Thus I am considered poor and not expected to delete bitcoin.  Bitcoin deletion would be consider how philanthropy is today, yet instead of benefiting a few insiders of many of these fake charities, it benefits everyone equally.  Consider bitcoin deletion gods work.  Fight hunger delete bitcoin.

Please, stop and think for a moment as this question is raised to brainstorm 'your' definition of "financial freedom" rather than accepting something actively propagated by organization and people with vested interest.

LOL! Law is circumference  and what happends beyond that is crime and freedom forms core of that circle and you say it has nothing to do. Confused!

We all know the general consensus is "bit".  I've been using the term for months, and it's plastered all over Reddit.  I know some people here disagree with the name, but you can't deny that it's by far the most popular and used term by many factors.

its basically an automated process where every time a person uses fiat they note the serial number on a website...

It is not necessary in order to attain these ends that we should dispossess gold from its traditional use. It is enough to supplement and regulate the total supply of gold and of the new money taken together. The new money must not be freely convertible into gold, for that would require that gold reserves should be held against it, and we should be back where we were, but there is no reason why the new money should not be purchasable for gold. By such means we can avoid the many obvious difficulties and disadvantages of proposing that the old money, gold, should be demonetized. The plan proposes therefore what is conveniently described as a one-way convertibility. What shall we call the new money? Bancor? ...

But at this point I draw your Lordships' attention to a striking feature of the proposals. Under the former gold standard, gold absorbed by a creditor country was wholly withdrawn from circulation. The present proposals avoid this by profiting from the experience of domestic banking. If an individual hoards his income, not in the shape of gold coins in his pockets or in his safe, but by keeping a bank deposit, this bank deposit is not withdrawn from circulation but provides his banker with the means of making loans to those who need them. Thus every act of hoarding, if it takes this form, itself provides the offsetting facilities for some other party, so that production and trade can continue. This technique will not prevent excessive hoarding from doing harm in the long run, since this may cause other countries to suffer the anxiety of a growing debit account which would eventually reach its permitted maximum. But a country which tends to hoard bancor beyond all reason will at any rate be exhibited before itself and before the whole world as the make-mischief of the piece; and will be under every motive of reason and of benevolence and of self-interest to take corrective measures. Nor, I fancy, will the hoarding of bancor prove as attractive or as plausible as the burying of gold seems to have been, if recent experience is a guide.

Why should they (you) be entitled to use the services others have paid for?
And some don't pay, the rest have to pay more to make up for it.

I find it very interesting that all of the addresses this person sent BTC to started with '1Ag'; I somewhat suspect that this person has hashed several addresses and sent this bitcoin to himself.

^Of course governments are corrupt.  The reason governments are a thing is because the alternatives simply don't work

To say that corporations bribe the government is really crazy. The government has sufficient regulatory power as a whole to not need to be bribed as they can simply tax and regulate any corporation to give it money that it needs

Whats the current state on Dogecoin laundering?

The transaction fee logic implemented by Armory matches that of the Bitcoin Core client itself.  If you were to include a fee lower than the fee there, the transaction will be DOA when you try to broadcast it.  The Bitcoin network would never see it.  Therefore, if you want your transaction to be accepted by the network you really must include that fee.

-mintxfee=<amt>        Fees smaller than this are considered zero fee (for transaction creation) (default: 0.0001)
-minrelaytxfee=<amt>   Fees smaller than this are considered zero fee (for relaying) (default: 0.00001)

MIN_TX_FEE = 10000
MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE = 10000