25 BTC block subsidy + ~1.4 BTC in total transaction fees (add up fees of all tx in the block). From the link. Transaction Fees 1.4199831 BTC
....
Block Reward 25 BTC
Personally I like the term subsidy. Miners get all fess plus the current subsidy (in new coins). |
|
|
|
Great idea, but to the government, this looks like an Automated Money Laundering Machine (AMLM?) The issue is that someone could engage in an illegal economic activity, deposit the cash in the machine, and send the BTC to anyone, anywhere. There's got to be a human in the loop, which I assume is how Western Union does it, in order to take AML information.
Little secret here. WU doesn't care if their tx are used for unlawful activity. They only care about complying with the regulations. No reason a machine cant' comply with regulations. I mean WU uses min wage employees mostly at grocery and convince stores. Until recently most of the logs were paper only. Does that really sound like an AML taskforce?  |
|
|
|
... just about any first world country has ... third world countries Well last time I checked the company in the OP wasn't look to build ATM network in Zimbabwe or Somalia. So your point was? |
|
|
|
The company is american? well that depends on where is registered. I'd never register my company in the US... too many regulations.
Yes, this could be the solution. Jeff needs to incorporate offshore and smoke all these clowns. </pipedream> Which does solve the problem. The location of the ATM is what matters. If it violates local law it is going to get seized. It is going to require local employees to service it, contracts with armored car companies to deal with the cash, and local banks, etc. |
|
|
|
The simple solution is to pay a bit more, and charge a bit more.
True however Bitcoin is highly variable. Our highest volume day this year is about 30x that of the lowest. We may end up floating both rates but until recently sticking with static markups has been highly effective. It remains to be seen if the prior 10 days is the new normal or just an outlier. Yes if over a longer period of time the exchange rate continues to rise by 2% to 3% per day then we likely need to adjust our policies. |
|
|
|
The elephant in the room here is that the FinCEN ruling is pretty clear that the operator of a machine like this would require a money transmitter licence, which would in turn mean KYC compliance. In reality if you walked up to this machine it would say "Please enter your username and password". The only way you could get an account would be by sending off all your identification documents for verification. The patriot act killed this invention before it was even born. Please tell me I'm wrong, I so want to be wrong.
In the US? Sure... in anywhere else in the world whatever the FinCen says is as valid as me signing a check for U$S 1,000,000  Understand that while FinCEN ruling don't apply just about any first world country has very similar KYC type laws. It is only a matter of time before they release similar (maybe not exactly word for word) guidance on how those laws applies to "virtual currencies". FinCEN (US) moved first but they won't be the last. I mean Russia is moving to ban cash tx larger than $10,000. You honestly think the same regulators looking to ban high value cash tx will somehow not realize that Bitcoin is a giant "loophole". Now governments have very little chance of regulating "Bitcoin proper" but they can have influence at the edge. So a company looking to spend tens of millions of dollars building out a network has to worry not just what the laws are "today" but what the laws likely are going to be in the next 5-10 years and if you think 10 years from now (assuming BTC money supply is in the tens of billions of USD equivalent) that no other country in the world is going to provide "guidance" similar to FinCEN well you are just living in a fantasy land where governments don't stifle innovation everyday. Note the idea is still powerful but anytime you are at the edge of fiat & crypto worlds it is going mean dealing with financial regulation. |
|
|
|
It is obscene that minimum tx fees are fixed BTC/KiB recommendations. This must be determined by individual miners! Miners must decide for themselves how much tx fees they accept. Miners need to be competing with each other on this. That was the original idea of Bitcoin. This will solve the problems of variable Bitcoin exchange prices by itself! Miners can already do this. Most of them just haven't chosen to do so yet. Yes and no. Miners select which transactions appear in a block... but clients choose which transactions to relay to other peers. Most clients will not even relay spam transactions (for obvious reasons... they are spam). However the min-fee to relay low-priority (spam) tx is much lower 0.0001 BTC (0.1 mBTC) which is currently about 1 US cent. There probably is no reason state there is a "min-mandatory" fee for inclusion in a block (0.0005) as it isn't exactly mandatory. Miners are free to ignore that. |
|
|
|
The blockchain would not get that big since these transactions would never be included in a block. For block inclusion, miners have a strong interest in setting their own anti-spam rules bitcoind is already configurable however miners have never been very good at looking at true cost. Also Bitcoin is somewhat unique in that the miner gets the profit but the cost is shared by all users globally forever. This leads to a scenario where miners can make very poor decisions that affect all users. There is no free market, one can't boycot a particular miner so "bad" decisions are at least partially rewarded. For example many miners would happily include spammy garbage tx as long as they pay "something". The true cost is externalized but the miner making the bad decision increases his/her bottom line. bitcoind only needs to make it configurable. I think this is a common misconception miners can already configure block inclusion rules using bitcoind. the min fee (on low priority tx for nodes to RELAY the tx is only 0.0001 BTC (about 1 US cent at time of writing). the min fee (on high priority tx) for nodes to RELAY the tx is 0 BTC. miners are free to include any tx they wish in a block. A miner could even advise users sending spammy, bloated, free tx to send them directly to the miner to bypass min fees for RELAY. Of course no miners has an incentive to do this but if you wanted you could start mining and have users send you their garbage tx directly. Do you see my point? I realize it would shift from "hardcoded minimum fee" to "hardcoded max bandwidth/memory consumption", but at least the latter seems more coherent with anti-DoS purposes. It would also need to be updated once in a while to reflect increases in available resources, but that happens less often than bitcoin's price movements IMHO. I never said that FEES MUST BE USED TO FIGHT MALICIOUS USE. I simply said your initial proposal was lacking. Remember Bitcoin is like a car in motion. The developers are like mechanics forced to fix and upgrade the engine without cutting off the ignition first. When thinking of an alternative it is better to start with "how can this be abused" rather than thinking "how can this be used". The min mandatory fee is inelegent (in the software design use of the word) but it does work. It makes malicious attacks on the network non-economical. You seem to be indicating that fee & priority should be combined. There should just be one priority and it can be based on a lot of things (coin age, UXTO set reduction, fee paid, etc). That likely is a start however some other components are necessary. a) miners need a way to be able to see downstream fees (allows receiver to spend 0-confirm with a fee to get both tx included) b) clients need to provide an accurate prediction for users otherwise the end result is lots of cheap users just spamming network w/ tx which never confirm (which helps nobody not even the user) Gavin has indicated that the fee model needs to be improved however until now it hasn't been a high priority. The min-mandatory fee on low priority tx isn't perfect but we should be cautious in changing it. It does currently act as a safeguard and also prevents users from doing something foolish. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be even better to stop using fees as anti-DoS?
Why can't we detect DoS by simply measuring the amount of data a peer is sending? If it goes beyond X KB/s, we stop storing and relaying transactions coming from this peer, eventually we disconnect from it and temporarily ban its IP locally. X could be configurable, in case there's a strong need to change the defaults without a release.
Would that be too difficult to implement? Incredibly easy to bypass. Ok so I want to spam (and by spam I mean bloat the blockchain by TB per week and make the unconfirmed memory pool run into the dozens of GBs) so I just make 20,000 new nodes (like say a botnet) and each on of them send for free a number of tx below the "limit". If it worked for protecting the network it would also work for consensus of the blockchain. There is a reason we have proof of work. We can't trust a malicous user won't run more than one node. If we could then you could replace the PoW with a simple vote. If 51% of nodes say a block is good then it is good. I never liked this "fees as anti-DoS" thing.... Then come up with a better solution however do understand we aren't just talking about "spam" in the traditional sense (i.e. a node blast the network with 10,000 tx per second) we are talking spam in the sense of wasting critical resources which all users pay (in terms of CPU, storage, and new node sync times). |
|
|
|
Are the limits, per order or per day?
Limits are per transaction. |
|
|
|
The check printer is not working this morning. First day working full time and I have spent three hours troubleshooting our MICR printer.  I am 99% confident checks will go into the mail today. A couple of our regular clients (who are use to the status happily changing to paid by 8AM or so) have already emailed support. Will provide an update once I got todays batch of checks printed. Update: Checks printed and shipped. |
|
|
|
So I just sent you 2.5 BTC @ 95.24 at 8:23 Eastern Time this morning, and got no confirmation you received it, payment addresses match 100%, and now my offer has expired yet my bitcoins are on the way to you. What gives? I sent the coins at 8:26 per my client on the same computer.
Issue has been resolved and confirmed by Fastbird, hopefully posts an update. |
|
|
|
you dont. armory was on kickstarter.
Armory was funded using another site called rockethub. To date kickstarter has been rather anti-Bitcoin. IIRC a couple projects were blanked rejected simply by having the word Bitcoin in the project. We aren't talking any long detailed analysis more like a 5 minute (oops Bitcoin - Rejected). For whatever reason (ignorance, snap judgements, personal bias of founders, fear of legal uncertainy, etc) until now kickstarter has been pretty much bitcoin hostile. If the OP can break open kickstarter anti-Bitcoin policy (defacto or otherwise) that is huge. http://www.rockethub.com/projects/6056-armory-bitcoin-development-fundinghttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64449.0To OP please keep the project as realistic as possible and if you need help from the community ask for it. A good project launch could open a lot of doors, maybe even a partnership between kickstarter and a payment processor like bitpay to allow Bitcoin funding. I mean honestly it seems silly that hasn't ALREADY happened "crowdfunding" = decentralized capital. Bitcoin = decentralized currency. Pretty much a no-brainer. |
|
|
|
The most recent 7-day average is also inaccurate, as it is also a partial-week. No matter what average is used, one should always consult the second-most recent datum. It is a rolling 7 day average. There is no such thing as a partial week. At 23:59:59 on Tuesday the 7 day average will still be a full week (from Wednesday through Tuesday). To the OP the point about Easter weekend is important. We have seen our volume decline significantly as well. It is a long weekend, many people taking time off to spend time at family gatherings. Any major holiday is going to distort the data compared to "normal" weeks. |
|
|
|
gadsdengraphics: They're using MongoDB. You can search for "coinbase" here to verify: http://www.mongodb.org/about/production-deployments/ Using a non-ACID compliant database for a financial application seems like a poor choice; hopefully they aren't using it keep logs of their financial transactions. I'll be damned... I am big fan of Mongo but I'd never ever use it for a financial backend. Please, someone from Coinbase come out and refute this for the sake of your company: Are you actually using mongo for the storage of the financial records themselves? I am curious on this one also. I mean the textbook example (I mean that literally as in any database textbook) of ACID is banking. NoSQL has a lot of advantages but one area where it doesn't shine is financial transactions. |
|
|
|
The real issue is the fixed anti dos rules.
Where can we discuss these rules? A slow and bureaucratic process to lower them is not sufficient having the current situation as an example. You can discuss them right here. The rules are here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_feesUnderstand the purpose of the anti-spam/DOS fees are not to generate revenue, they generate a trivial amount of revenue. The purpose is to protect an attacker with a modest of amount of funds (say $100,000) causing massive economic damage to the project by spamming nodes, and bloating the blockchain. Bitcoin is somewhat unique in that everyone pays the "cost" of all tx (in the form of storage, bandwidth, CPU, etc). The fee is designed to prevent someone from maliciously exploiting that characteristic. It gets confusing but there are essentially two fees: a) min mandatory fee (aka anti-spam, anti-DOS fee) paid ONLY on low priority tx AND b) the optional fee paid on any tx for faster confirmations |
|
|
|
My payment was recieved. Now waiting for Paypal send. Not sure how long this might take. Perhaps I will have coins send back if theres not enough funds?
We send PayPal payments in batch multiple times per day. Between 8AM and 11PM the average time between batches is about 3 hours. Unlike the blockchain we occasionally do require sleep, food, and human contact so outside of those hours it may be a longer delay. We don't accept an order unless we have funds to pay it, and all sales are final there are no refunds if the price improves after a sale but before payment is complete. |
|
|
|
|
Simple version is that in "card not present" tx (where merchant only has card number and hasn't physically swiped the card), the merchant takes 100% risk. It is pretty trivial to simply lie and say "no I didn't make that purchase" and usually (say 90% of the time) the cardholder will win. Now in a business with high markup (like say online games) this fraud is costly but the company can survive. If you steal a $10 game from Steam it doesn't physically cost Steam $10. They lose the potential profit but they can ride that out if they keep fraud low. On the other hand with something like Bitcoin having a $1,000 BTC tx reversed means a $1,000 loss. If MtGox collects 0.6% fee and had CC fraud of say 1% (which would be insanely good) they would lose money in the long run. The losses on the 1% would cost more than the fees collected on the 99%.
It is highly unlikely there will ever be large scale CC funded BTC purchases. At least not online. Maybe someday a physical merchant recording ID (a point of sale ID scanner) and requiring a PIN debt card tx could get fraud low enough to be profitable. This is similar to how casinos can allow buying chips using a credit card and make enough in fees to cover the inevitable fraud.
|
|
|
|
Its key for people to keep in mind that A, B and C all must be true, Not just one of the three
my main problem is that my client always tells me a differant fucking fee, Like right now on 0.8.1 it costs me .003!!! per transaction, Like WHAT THE FUCK
The min fee is PER KB. |
|
|
|
Let's say that a large miner with a high hash rate started to only accept transactions into a block if there was a fee above a certain limit. Wouldn't that result in tons of transactions not being handled because miners would refuse to process them?
What if a large cab company in NY only accepted fares which paid $2 per block but you wanted to pay the cab driver 1 piece of lint per mile. Wouldn't that result in a lot of people having to walk? Hint: people could just pay more in fees. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
