Raise the minimum transaction fee

[countryfree]

I don't see the solution in increasing the fees in a compulsory manner or the entire network. One of the advantages of bitcoins that is repeated over and over again is the low transaction fees compared to the traditional banking system. If we start implying artificial fees to fend off attacks, it can lead down a road where we might not want to go.

A problem with a fixed btc fee is the price of bitcoin. If the price would drop an attack could happen as it would be cheaper. If the price rises then legitimate users would be affected negatively. Percentage fees lead to a similar problem with bitcoin losing its edge over the banking system.

After all, wouldn't this problem be solved - at a cost of storage space - with increasing the block size?

i agree with you bitcoin were made to take out those killing fees that banks takes for any thing we wanna pay or tranfer to others,if we raise it we will come to a point that bitcoin would loose all interest since use it or bank will cost the same,on those time bitcoin would be dead.

I'm not worrying about this as long as the fee remains very low. We have free SEPA transfers within the EU, so it looks better than BTC but a .10 cents transaction fee is not a deal breaker, considering the other advantages of BTC.

[Genesys]

I don't see the solution in increasing the fees in a compulsory manner or the entire network. One of the advantages of bitcoins that is repeated over and over again is the low transaction fees compared to the traditional banking system. If we start implying artificial fees to fend off attacks, it can lead down a road where we might not want to go.

A problem with a fixed btc fee is the price of bitcoin. If the price would drop an attack could happen as it would be cheaper. If the price rises then legitimate users would be affected negatively. Percentage fees lead to a similar problem with bitcoin losing its edge over the banking system.

After all, wouldn't this problem be solved - at a cost of storage space - with increasing the block size?

i agree with you bitcoin were made to take out those killing fees that banks takes for any thing we wanna pay or tranfer to others,if we raise it we will come to a point that bitcoin would loose all interest since use it or bank will cost the same,on those time bitcoin would be dead.

I'm not worrying about this as long as the fee remains very low. We have free SEPA transfers within the EU, so it looks better than BTC but a .10 cents transaction fee is not a deal breaker, considering the other advantages of BTC.

That bank fee per transaction is low. Considering we pay $1 per transaction on our bank fees here, once you go over your bank plans allowable transactions in a month depending on the plan you are on.

[Borisz]

I don't see the solution in increasing the fees in a compulsory manner or the entire network. One of the advantages of bitcoins that is repeated over and over again is the low transaction fees compared to the traditional banking system. If we start implying artificial fees to fend off attacks, it can lead down a road where we might not want to go.

A problem with a fixed btc fee is the price of bitcoin. If the price would drop an attack could happen as it would be cheaper. If the price rises then legitimate users would be affected negatively. Percentage fees lead to a similar problem with bitcoin losing its edge over the banking system.

After all, wouldn't this problem be solved - at a cost of storage space - with increasing the block size?

i agree with you bitcoin were made to take out those killing fees that banks takes for any thing we wanna pay or tranfer to others,if we raise it we will come to a point that bitcoin would loose all interest since use it or bank will cost the same,on those time bitcoin would be dead.

I'm not worrying about this as long as the fee remains very low. We have free SEPA transfers within the EU, so it looks better than BTC but a .10 cents transaction fee is not a deal breaker, considering the other advantages of BTC.

SEPA doesn't just say that the bank cannot charge you more than it would for transferring to a bank in the country where you are sending from? I haven't really used it yet, not doing cross-border transfers.

About banking and fees: in e.g. Hungary I still pay transaction fees on bank transfer even if it within the same bank, what more even between two accounts in the same office/branch. On the other hand in Scotland I have never paid for any bank transfer. Nor for using ATM, no monthly fees, no withdrawal nothing at all.

[jbreher]

jbreher In case the attackers are ...

Yes, I understand all the implications. However, history hath shewn that central planning is never as effective as the invisible hand of the marketplace. Block space _is_ a limited resource. Let us compete freely for it. If the miners clog all the block space sending big transaction fee transfers to themselves, they may crowd out regular users' lower fee transactions. Net effect: no new fees will enter the system. They will not make money. They'll eventually realize it, and roll back to a more market-appropriate level.

There is no problem here.

[Amph]

I don't see the solution in increasing the fees in a compulsory manner or the entire network. One of the advantages of bitcoins that is repeated over and over again is the low transaction fees compared to the traditional banking system. If we start implying artificial fees to fend off attacks, it can lead down a road where we might not want to go.

A problem with a fixed btc fee is the price of bitcoin. If the price would drop an attack could happen as it would be cheaper. If the price rises then legitimate users would be affected negatively. Percentage fees lead to a similar problem with bitcoin losing its edge over the banking system.

After all, wouldn't this problem be solved - at a cost of storage space - with increasing the block size?

i agree with you bitcoin were made to take out those killing fees that banks takes for any thing we wanna pay or tranfer to others,if we raise it we will come to a point that bitcoin would loose all interest since use it or bank will cost the same,on those time bitcoin would be dead.

I'm not worrying about this as long as the fee remains very low. We have free SEPA transfers within the EU, so it looks better than BTC but a .10 cents transaction fee is not a deal breaker, considering the other advantages of BTC.

sepa may be free but then they charge you fees when you exchange with money outside the euro zone or when you withdraw or for you credit card(monthly) and other random crap

bitcoin from 10k to 100k satoshi can still work well and be very less expensive than fiat system

[Somekindabitcoin]

I think this will get faucet users down. Imagine you do captchas and close popups the whole day for 0.001 BTC and now there's a 0.0005 BTC fee.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

But he means to raise the minimum fee so that the spamming attack will cost more. When he raises his own fee then the attack isn't changed.

jbreher In case the attackers are a combination of big miners then they will earn from spamming because what they invest will come back and more on top. When the minimum fee would be raised then they would get what they want without having to pay for it. Though that only when really miners are spamming.

I think your making the "Golden Ratio" argument, which was debunked...


When spammers spam, all miners REVENUE go up, but only the spammers have the added EXPENSE of the spam.  Therefore they get less PROFIT.

I don't see that calculation debunking the theory. I mean when the biggest chinese pools stay together then they can fund the operation cheaply.

For sure they will raise profits for all other miners too but they most probably will have the ability to create more cheap miners for a lower price than small miners and pools. The profits from spamming would be miniscule, the same goes for the profits the other pools get. But an advantage in cost of creation of miners can be rather big. So even when others earn more, it could mean that the big pools still get more back in new mining hardware.

Though it looks like it weren't the miners, or they dropped their plan since the spamming stopped now.

[d4n13]

But he means to raise the minimum fee so that the spamming attack will cost more. When he raises his own fee then the attack isn't changed.

jbreher In case the attackers are a combination of big miners then they will earn from spamming because what they invest will come back and more on top. When the minimum fee would be raised then they would get what they want without having to pay for it. Though that only when really miners are spamming.

I think your making the "Golden Ratio" argument, which was debunked...


When spammers spam, all miners REVENUE go up, but only the spammers have the added EXPENSE of the spam.  Therefore they get less PROFIT.

I don't see that calculation debunking the theory. I mean when the biggest chinese pools stay together then they can fund the operation cheaply.

For sure they will raise profits for all other miners too but they most probably will have the ability to create more cheap miners for a lower price than small miners and pools. The profits from spamming would be miniscule, the same goes for the profits the other pools get. But an advantage in cost of creation of miners can be rather big. So even when others earn more, it could mean that the big pools still get more back in new mining hardware.

Though it looks like it weren't the miners, or they dropped their plan since the spamming stopped now.

The proof is that "Spammer Bob" makes 1821 BTC / day when spamming is off, but only makes 1810 BTC / day when spamming is on.

You may think that 11 BTC is no big deal for a miner, but the question remains... why would a miner engage in a behavior that reduces thier profit margin?

[BitcoinRichman]

Why not just raise the transaction fee to .0005 per transaction?? That will make the attack way more costly and the cost is still negligible to typical bitcoiners.

Nope, im not want to increase my fee transfer, because im not have more bitcoin to transfer it, om still use 10ksatosi for all my transaction

[Somekindabitcoin]

Why not just raise the transaction fee to .0005 per transaction?? That will make the attack way more costly and the cost is still negligible to typical bitcoiners.

Nope, im not want to increase my fee transfer, because im not have more bitcoin to transfer it, om still use 10ksatosi for all my transaction

You can choose what fee you like to use. You can even send with 0 fee, but it's not recommended.

[BitcoinRichman]

Why not just raise the transaction fee to .0005 per transaction?? That will make the attack way more costly and the cost is still negligible to typical bitcoiners.

Nope, im not want to increase my fee transfer, because im not have more bitcoin to transfer it, om still use 10ksatosi for all my transaction

You can choose what fee you like to use. You can even send with 0 fee, but it's not recommended.

Yeahh i know it, but 0 fee transaction is like suicide, need more than 1day for get 1confirmation

[fr4nkthetank]

n

[Somekindabitcoin]

Why not just raise the transaction fee to .0005 per transaction?? That will make the attack way more costly and the cost is still negligible to typical bitcoiners.

fuck it.  have confirmation times 1 minute, and decrease block reward by the proportional amount.  you dumb fucks sometimes you wait around 45 minutes for confirmations.  how the fuck is that okay?  Unless you don't want bitcoin to be used day to day for a coffee, sandwich, parking fees, beer, etc, etc, etc, etc,

That's the biggest minus of Bitcoin. Fucking long confirmation time.

[Borisz]

Why not just raise the transaction fee to .0005 per transaction?? That will make the attack way more costly and the cost is still negligible to typical bitcoiners.

fuck it.  have confirmation times 1 minute, and decrease block reward by the proportional amount.  you dumb fucks sometimes you wait around 45 minutes for confirmations.  how the fuck is that okay?  Unless you don't want bitcoin to be used day to day for a coffee, sandwich, parking fees, beer, etc, etc, etc, etc,

That's the biggest minus of Bitcoin. Fucking long confirmation time.

The problem is, you don't know how much money they have. There is no guarantee that they couldn't keep it going. Also, it could be their goal for the standard tx fee to be increased by default.

[Za1n]

Why not just raise the transaction fee to .0005 per transaction?? That will make the attack way more costly and the cost is still negligible to typical bitcoiners.

fuck it.  have confirmation times 1 minute, and decrease block reward by the proportional amount.  you dumb fucks sometimes you wait around 45 minutes for confirmations.  how the fuck is that okay?  Unless you don't want bitcoin to be used day to day for a coffee, sandwich, parking fees, beer, etc, etc, etc, etc,

That's the biggest minus of Bitcoin. Fucking long confirmation time.

This is my take on the situation as well. While I do see the need for transaction fees, I also see people complaining why bitcoin does not go more mainstream. While the .0005 fee may currently be 15 cents as someone pointed out, if I am going to use bitcoin for my everyday purchases that 15 cents will add up. If I make 30 small bitcoin transactions a day that would be an extra $4.50 just to use bitcoin. While I can see someone willing to pay $5.00 to move a $1,000+ transaction through a bit quicker, I cannot see a lot of people wanting to paying an extra $5 a day just to use bitcoin for their day-to-day activities.

[d4n13]

Why not just raise the transaction fee to .0005 per transaction?? That will make the attack way more costly and the cost is still negligible to typical bitcoiners.

fuck it.  have confirmation times 1 minute, and decrease block reward by the proportional amount.  you dumb fucks sometimes you wait around 45 minutes for confirmations.  how the fuck is that okay?  Unless you don't want bitcoin to be used day to day for a coffee, sandwich, parking fees, beer, etc, etc, etc, etc,

That's the biggest minus of Bitcoin. Fucking long confirmation time.

This is not a bitcoin problem it is a math problem.  Bitcoin (for good or bad) relies on math.  The hope was that wallets would use math to calculate TX fees.  Many do... apparently... yours does not.  You might want to reconsider your choice of wallet programs, or do the math yourself.  If you don't want to do the math, I would set your TX fee commiserate to your disdain for the math required.  Again... switching wallets, or complaining to the wallet maker may be the easiest answer.

The transaction fee is a statistical question... As long as the entire mempool can fit in one block (which it can as of right now), you can go all the way down to 1 sat/byte.

The minimum TX fee to stay on the network (as of today) is 1000 sat / 1000 bytes (or 1 sat/byte).

If your TX has old coins, it is possible that the priority is high enough (as of today 57,600,000) to stay on the network with no TX fee

If the mempool is larger than one block (1,000,000 bytes) then your TX will need to compete with other TX to get in a block.

When transactions have to compete for blockspace the following sorting is used.

• The transactions are sorted by priority
• The highest priority (coin age) TX are selected until the block is 5% filled
• The remaining transactions are sorted by satoshi/byte
• Those payint the highest satoshi/byte are selected for the remaining 95% of the block space
• The rest of the TX are left into pool for the next sorting

If you studied statistics, this is straight forward problem to solve, but as others have stated about 76 times already... hard coding a fee value will not solve a statistical equation.  Best to get a wallet app that is mempool aware with sliding fees, or do the stats yourself if the mempool ever fills up again.

The sample data to solve this simple statistical problem by hand is conveniently provided here if you scroll down and select "Raw Data"

PS: Admins... forgive my double post... just get weary of explaining it.

[knowhow]

well bitcoin has a great potencial and the speed of confirmations just make it be more secure harder to hack currently a hacker can get into bank accounts ,can cloned credit or debit cards ,bitcoin as i know cant be  .

[bitcoinmasterlord]

jbreher In case the attackers are ...

Yes, I understand all the implications. However, history hath shewn that central planning is never as effective as the invisible hand of the marketplace. Block space _is_ a limited resource. Let us compete freely for it. If the miners clog all the block space sending big transaction fee transfers to themselves, they may crowd out regular users' lower fee transactions. Net effect: no new fees will enter the system. They will not make money. They'll eventually realize it, and roll back to a more market-appropriate level.

There is no problem here.

If history has shown something then that the invisible hand of the marketplace is very dangerous to the whole. I agree that central planning works even worse. But the marketplace brings out results like banks that trade with enourmous bubbles. They proceed because the others do so too. At the end they crash and bring misfortune to the whole market.

The thing is, when miners find a way to earn more, then they will do. SPV mining for example. So when it's possible to get an advantage and you even harm bitcoin, then they might do it. When they made their nice stash and bitcoin is dead then they have their money already. And they can be sure that most others won't do it, in order to protect bitcoin. So they can use it and know that they don't hurt bitcoin big enough.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

But he means to raise the minimum fee so that the spamming attack will cost more. When he raises his own fee then the attack isn't changed.

jbreher In case the attackers are a combination of big miners then they will earn from spamming because what they invest will come back and more on top. When the minimum fee would be raised then they would get what they want without having to pay for it. Though that only when really miners are spamming.

I think your making the "Golden Ratio" argument, which was debunked...


When spammers spam, all miners REVENUE go up, but only the spammers have the added EXPENSE of the spam.  Therefore they get less PROFIT.

I don't see that calculation debunking the theory. I mean when the biggest chinese pools stay together then they can fund the operation cheaply.

For sure they will raise profits for all other miners too but they most probably will have the ability to create more cheap miners for a lower price than small miners and pools. The profits from spamming would be miniscule, the same goes for the profits the other pools get. But an advantage in cost of creation of miners can be rather big. So even when others earn more, it could mean that the big pools still get more back in new mining hardware.

Though it looks like it weren't the miners, or they dropped their plan since the spamming stopped now.

The proof is that "Spammer Bob" makes 1821 BTC / day when spamming is off, but only makes 1810 BTC / day when spamming is on.

You may think that 11 BTC is no big deal for a miner, but the question remains... why would a miner engage in a behavior that reduces thier profit margin?

I think that graphic includes some errors. First, with spam the fees are higher. Second, a potential mining corporation build out of all big chinese miners, could be more than 60%. So i think it's possible to increase mining profit with that. The most profitable it would be for the miners not spamming at all while the others spam, thats true.

[d4n13]

I think that graphic includes some errors. First, with spam the fees are higher. Second, a potential mining corporation build out of all big chinese miners, could be more than 60%. So i think it's possible to increase mining profit with that. The most profitable it would be for the miners not spamming at all while the others spam, thats true.

I still challenge anyone to put any data (not formulas) on paper (real or imaginary) that shows how a spammer can receive more in fees than he spends.  Laws of entropy and conservation of energy dictate that a system can not produce more energy (money) then it consumes.