Sending without transaction fees

[ranlo]

Means if i want to get superfast confirmation , 100,000(very high priority ) will do the deal?

This would be no different than 0.0001 BTC at the current time. Technically if the blocks were full every single time, it would prioritize based on highest fees first (i.e., a 1 BTC fee would come before a 0.99 BTC fee and so on). But as it is, 0.0001 will get it into the next available block almost 100% of the time.

Okay so i don't need to make it more than 0.0001 BTC even if i want High priority.
That sounds good enough
Thank you

Correct. If you want to push yourself above everyone else just to ensure you're at the top of the list, you can do 0.0002 BTC. But really, that's not necessary unless blocks start filling up on a regular basis.

[ranlo]

One day I've sent a big transaction of ~5 btc with zero fee and it was confirmed in less than 30 min. Maybe I was lucky or maybe it was the 5 btc I dunno know. Now I put always  0.0001 bitcoin as fee and for me is very fine, it is less than 0,02 $ !

Zero-fee transactions are based on the weight of the transaction, which takes into consideration the input size, output size, and age. If you held 0.1 BTC for a day, you'd already have enough weight to negate the need for fees (if you were sending at least 0.01 BTC). 5 BTC was way overkill for the system.

[odolvlobo]

One day I've sent a big transaction of ~5 btc with zero fee and it was confirmed in less than 30 min. Maybe I was lucky or maybe it was the 5 btc I dunno know. Now I put always  0.0001 bitcoin as fee and for me is very fine, it is less than 0,02 $ !

Zero-fee transactions are based on the weight of the transaction, which takes into consideration the input size, output size, and age. If you held 0.1 BTC for a day, you'd already have enough weight to negate the need for fees (if you were sending at least 0.01 BTC). 5 BTC was way overkill for the system.

 I like the term "weight" to mean the size in bytes. Generally, the "size" of a transaction is considered to be its value, so a term like "weight", which also implies a burden, is better. I'm going to use it from now on.

[josef2000]

One day I've sent a big transaction of ~5 btc with zero fee and it was confirmed in less than 30 min. Maybe I was lucky or maybe it was the 5 btc I dunno know. Now I put always  0.0001 bitcoin as fee and for me is very fine, it is less than 0,02 $ !

Zero-fee transactions are based on the weight of the transaction, which takes into consideration the input size, output size, and age. If you held 0.1 BTC for a day, you'd already have enough weight to negate the need for fees (if you were sending at least 0.01 BTC). 5 BTC was way overkill for the system.

 I like the term "weight" to mean the size in bytes. Generally, the "size" of a transaction is considered to be its value, so a term like "weight", which also implies a burden, is better. I'm going to use it from now on.

Is the weight calculated in the amount of bitcoin or the amount of adresses sending Transactions?
Like 1 adress sends 5 btc or 100 adresses send 0.1 btc together?

[redsn0w]

One day I've sent a big transaction of ~5 btc with zero fee and it was confirmed in less than 30 min. Maybe I was lucky or maybe it was the 5 btc I dunno know. Now I put always  0.0001 bitcoin as fee and for me is very fine, it is less than 0,02 $ !

Zero-fee transactions are based on the weight of the transaction, which takes into consideration the input size, output size, and age. If you held 0.1 BTC for a day, you'd already have enough weight to negate the need for fees (if you were sending at least 0.01 BTC). 5 BTC was way overkill for the system.

 I like the term "weight" to mean the size in bytes. Generally, the "size" of a transaction is considered to be its value, so a term like "weight", which also implies a burden, is better. I'm going to use it from now on.

Is the weight calculated in the amount of bitcoin or the amount of adresses sending Transactions?
Like 1 adress sends 5 btc or 100 adresses send 0.1 btc together?

The weight/size is calculated in base of how much inputs your transaction has, if it has 2 inputs it will have a little weight instead if it will have 3-4 or more inputs its weight is more than the other (and you should put an "high" fee).

[ranlo]

One day I've sent a big transaction of ~5 btc with zero fee and it was confirmed in less than 30 min. Maybe I was lucky or maybe it was the 5 btc I dunno know. Now I put always  0.0001 bitcoin as fee and for me is very fine, it is less than 0,02 $ !

Zero-fee transactions are based on the weight of the transaction, which takes into consideration the input size, output size, and age. If you held 0.1 BTC for a day, you'd already have enough weight to negate the need for fees (if you were sending at least 0.01 BTC). 5 BTC was way overkill for the system.

 I like the term "weight" to mean the size in bytes. Generally, the "size" of a transaction is considered to be its value, so a term like "weight", which also implies a burden, is better. I'm going to use it from now on.

Is the weight calculated in the amount of bitcoin or the amount of adresses sending Transactions?
Like 1 adress sends 5 btc or 100 adresses send 0.1 btc together?

The weight/size is calculated in base of how much inputs your transaction has, if it has 2 inputs it will have a little weight instead if it will have 3-4 or more inputs its weight is more than the other (and you should put an "high" fee).

Weight is in relation to its importance in the network, NOT its cost. Higher weight = higher priority to be added. I think you're getting terms confused here. In fact, it's the opposite of what you said: higher weight = LESS fees needed, since it's already a high-priority transaction.

[redsn0w]

One day I've sent a big transaction of ~5 btc with zero fee and it was confirmed in less than 30 min. Maybe I was lucky or maybe it was the 5 btc I dunno know. Now I put always  0.0001 bitcoin as fee and for me is very fine, it is less than 0,02 $ !

Zero-fee transactions are based on the weight of the transaction, which takes into consideration the input size, output size, and age. If you held 0.1 BTC for a day, you'd already have enough weight to negate the need for fees (if you were sending at least 0.01 BTC). 5 BTC was way overkill for the system.

 I like the term "weight" to mean the size in bytes. Generally, the "size" of a transaction is considered to be its value, so a term like "weight", which also implies a burden, is better. I'm going to use it from now on.

Is the weight calculated in the amount of bitcoin or the amount of adresses sending Transactions?
Like 1 adress sends 5 btc or 100 adresses send 0.1 btc together?

The weight/size is calculated in base of how much inputs your transaction has, if it has 2 inputs it will have a little weight instead if it will have 3-4 or more inputs its weight is more than the other (and you should put an "high" fee).

Weight is in relation to its importance in the network, NOT its cost. Higher weight = higher priority to be added. I think you're getting terms confused here. In fact, it's the opposite of what you said: higher weight = LESS fees needed, since it's already a high-priority transaction.

Let's make a little example , this transaction :  https://blockchain.info/en/tx/629b20c359a465dae1f7bee99dadf8eb797e7f1087deca56248388a220c7240a

Size   372 (bytes)     0.0001 BTC btc as fee  |  2 inputs

The size is the weight. If the transaction has more weight it needed "more" fee, now let's suppose that transaction has 1800 byte with only 1000 satoshi as fee. I think it will not confirmed fast as the other. Correct me again if I am wrong.

[josef2000]

One day I've sent a big transaction of ~5 btc with zero fee and it was confirmed in less than 30 min. Maybe I was lucky or maybe it was the 5 btc I dunno know. Now I put always  0.0001 bitcoin as fee and for me is very fine, it is less than 0,02 $ !

Zero-fee transactions are based on the weight of the transaction, which takes into consideration the input size, output size, and age. If you held 0.1 BTC for a day, you'd already have enough weight to negate the need for fees (if you were sending at least 0.01 BTC). 5 BTC was way overkill for the system.

 I like the term "weight" to mean the size in bytes. Generally, the "size" of a transaction is considered to be its value, so a term like "weight", which also implies a burden, is better. I'm going to use it from now on.

Is the weight calculated in the amount of bitcoin or the amount of adresses sending Transactions?
Like 1 adress sends 5 btc or 100 adresses send 0.1 btc together?

The weight/size is calculated in base of how much inputs your transaction has, if it has 2 inputs it will have a little weight instead if it will have 3-4 or more inputs its weight is more than the other (and you should put an "high" fee).

Weight is in relation to its importance in the network, NOT its cost. Higher weight = higher priority to be added. I think you're getting terms confused here. In fact, it's the opposite of what you said: higher weight = LESS fees needed, since it's already a high-priority transaction.

Let's make a little example , this transaction :  https://blockchain.info/en/tx/629b20c359a465dae1f7bee99dadf8eb797e7f1087deca56248388a220c7240a

Size   372 (bytes)     0.0001 BTC btc as fee  |  2 inputs

The size is the weight. If the transaction has more weight it needed "more" fee, now let's suppose that transaction has 1800 byte with only 1000 satoshi as fee. I think it will not confirmed fast as the other. Correct me again if I am wrong.

Wow, thanks for the explanation!
So is it possible that I send 0.01 btc with 100 inputs but no fee, will it still be confirmed as normal, because the size is big or will it be longer than usual/skips blocks?

[odolvlobo]

One day I've sent a big transaction of ~5 btc with zero fee and it was confirmed in less than 30 min. Maybe I was lucky or maybe it was the 5 btc I dunno know. Now I put always  0.0001 bitcoin as fee and for me is very fine, it is less than 0,02 $ !

Zero-fee transactions are based on the weight of the transaction, which takes into consideration the input size, output size, and age. If you held 0.1 BTC for a day, you'd already have enough weight to negate the need for fees (if you were sending at least 0.01 BTC). 5 BTC was way overkill for the system.

 I like the term "weight" to mean the size in bytes. Generally, the "size" of a transaction is considered to be its value, so a term like "weight", which also implies a burden, is better. I'm going to use it from now on.

Weight is in relation to its importance in the network, NOT its cost. Higher weight = higher priority to be added. I think you're getting terms confused here. In fact, it's the opposite of what you said: higher weight = LESS fees needed, since it's already a high-priority transaction.

I didn't read your post closely enough. I still prefer the "weight" of a transaction to be the size in bytes, even though there still might be some confusion. Is there precedence in using the term weight to me importance of the transaction? Is there a better term that could be used?

[ranlo]

One day I've sent a big transaction of ~5 btc with zero fee and it was confirmed in less than 30 min. Maybe I was lucky or maybe it was the 5 btc I dunno know. Now I put always  0.0001 bitcoin as fee and for me is very fine, it is less than 0,02 $ !

Zero-fee transactions are based on the weight of the transaction, which takes into consideration the input size, output size, and age. If you held 0.1 BTC for a day, you'd already have enough weight to negate the need for fees (if you were sending at least 0.01 BTC). 5 BTC was way overkill for the system.

 I like the term "weight" to mean the size in bytes. Generally, the "size" of a transaction is considered to be its value, so a term like "weight", which also implies a burden, is better. I'm going to use it from now on.

Weight is in relation to its importance in the network, NOT its cost. Higher weight = higher priority to be added. I think you're getting terms confused here. In fact, it's the opposite of what you said: higher weight = LESS fees needed, since it's already a high-priority transaction.

I didn't read your post closely enough. I still prefer the "weight" of a transaction to be the size in bytes, even though there still might be some confusion. Is there precedence in using the term weight to me importance of the transaction? Is there a better term that could be used?

Very good question. In the crypto world, verbiage is always being changed. For example, some still count BTCs in bitcoins, while others do it in bits.

Weight is one of those things... but it's pretty common to use the term "stake weight" to determine your power on the network (i.e. chances of staking a block, relative to others), and that's so widespread that I think changing it would only cause more confusion.

I do agree that "size" has an unclear definition, as well. Size could be bytes or it could be coins being sent. It's often used interchangeably and really shouldn't be.

What we need is a solid group of definitions that everyone pulls from.