Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 02:56:00 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: 5.70 fee on a 70 BTC transaction?  (Read 4027 times)
mestar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 11:50:05 AM
 #1

I want to send 70 bitcoins:

"This transaction is over the size limit. You can still send it for a fee of 5.90,..."

What is that, like 8% fee? 
1481381760
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481381760

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481381760
Reply with quote  #2

1481381760
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481381760
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481381760

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481381760
Reply with quote  #2

1481381760
Report to moderator
1481381760
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481381760

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481381760
Reply with quote  #2

1481381760
Report to moderator
1481381760
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481381760

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481381760
Reply with quote  #2

1481381760
Report to moderator
SomeoneWeird
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:49:52 PM
 #2

It goes towards the nodes the are processing the transactions, but I agree, 5.70 for that is a bit over the top. Nothing we can do though.
wumpus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798

No Maps for These Territories


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:55:36 PM
 #3

Huh that's crazy. This is worse than paypal  Huh When did the fees change from 0.01 ?

Edit: If it's still 0.01/kB, this means your transaction is 590kB? How could a transaction become that big?


Bitcoin Core developer [PGP] Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through FileBackup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.
Alex Beckenham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 01:57:38 PM
 #4

Huh that's crazy. This is worse than paypal  Huh When did the fees change from 0.01 ?

That's per kb. So perhaps he's sending a 570kb transaction, which if it's 70 BTC could mean he's consolidating a truckload of incoming 0.01 transactions.

mestar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 02:44:00 PM
 #5

This is the transaction http://blockexplorer.com/address/14L8qNvBPBLax1rkDawZBHay6wDvHryeSC

Does anybody know how does the 'suggested' amount for the transaction work?  (Or should I try to find it myself in the source code.) 

It's really unintuitive,  I've tried it a couple of times, each time getting a different suggested fee amount, even for 7 BTC, then I finally managed to get it trough for 0.59, which comes to something close to 0.9%.   Weird. 
barbarousrelic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 02:46:47 PM
 #6

I was under the impression you could send any size transaction with any size fee or no fee, and it would depend on which miner processes the next block whether it would be confirmed in that block or not. (And that if the next miner didn't accept it, it would then have a chance of being confirmed in the next block, and so on.)

Could someone please correct me?

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
Gandlaf
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 59


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 02:50:08 PM
 #7

This is the transaction http://blockexplorer.com/address/14L8qNvBPBLax1rkDawZBHay6wDvHryeSC

Does anybody know how does the 'suggested' amount for the transaction work?  (Or should I try to find it myself in the source code.) 

It's really unintuitive,  I've tried it a couple of times, each time getting a different suggested fee amount, even for 7 BTC, then I finally managed to get it trough for 0.59, which comes to something close to 0.9%.   Weird. 


Isn´t this a bit of a problem in the long run. I do(more or less) get the technical issues that lead to the differences in transaction fees. But is this really a way to run a monetary system? Shouldn´t transfers of the same amount incur the same fee, regardless of how the bitcoins behind it are structured? Won´t completely arbitrary fees make the system unusable for commercial transactions(after all the main purpose bitcoin was invented for)?

Bitcoin donations: 1hWi34by8KRLEh4san5Eotz5WzU3AJZA5
mestar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 02:51:39 PM
 #8

I thought the same, but this is not possible with the 3.21 client, and it was the same with the 3.19. 

If you click "No" in the "Would you like to pay this fee?" dialog, the transaction is simply canceled/discarded.
goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330

Armory Developer


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 02:56:45 PM
 #9

I was under the impression you could send any size transaction with any size fee or no fee, and it would depend on which miner processes the next block whether it would be confirmed in that block or not. (And that if the next miner didn't accept it, it would then have a chance of being confirmed in the next block, and so on.)

That assumption is true. It is up to miners to integrate any transactions they wish to the blocks they're attempting to solve. I think that warning is an implemented (but not enforced) guideline about transaction fees in the standard client. He can still try to submit the tx for free, and chances are one of the miners that integrate tx regardless of fee will take care of it(~99% of the network right now).

What this warning shows is how much you'd be expected to "tip" in order to have that tx processed in the late future.

Also, the message gets me thinking the guy is using a 0.005 BTC/kb fee client and that his tx is actually 1,180kb wide, which is why the client is bitching about "size limit", which is currenctly capped at 1mb per block.

btcarmory.com
Raulo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 02:57:50 PM
 #10

I want to send 70 bitcoins:

"This transaction is over the size limit. You can still send it for a fee of 5.90,..."

What is that, like 8% fee? 

Next time, do not get 0.1 BTC pool payouts but larger chunks. Everybody now needs to store your 55 kB transaction in their blockchain. Transaction fees are a way to force people to economize their transaction behavior and use larger BTC value transactions.  

1HAoJag4C3XtAmQJAhE9FTAAJWFcrvpdLM
barbarousrelic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 03:01:13 PM
 #11

I was under the impression you could send any size transaction with any size fee or no fee, and it would depend on which miner processes the next block whether it would be confirmed in that block or not. (And that if the next miner didn't accept it, it would then have a chance of being confirmed in the next block, and so on.)

That assumption is true. It is up to miners to integrate any transactions they wish to the blocks they're attempting to solve. I think that warning is an implemented (but not enforced) guideline about transaction fees in the standard client. He can still try to submit the tx for free, and chances are one of the miners that integrate tx regardless of fee will take care of it(~99% of the network right now).

What this warning shows is how much you'd be expected to "tip" in order to have that tx processed in the late future.


A similar thing happened to me before when someone accidentally sent me 100 1-BTC transactions. I tried sending them back all at once, and it seemed to me that it was not possible to send them without the transaction fee. mestar's post above concurs: If you click "No" that you don't want to pay the fee, the transaction is cancelled.

I ended up paying the guy back with two free 50-BTC transactions, but it still seems like something is wrong.

And I agree with Gandlaf - it is very confusing if the transaction fees can't be anticipated by the amount of the transaction. If the user can't easily tell whether he has 100 individual bitcoins or 100000 of .001 bitcoins, it's going to be frustrating and confusing for him to try to send without knowing the number of kilobytes the transaction will be and therefore how much of a fee he should pay. How are merchant-customer agreements on fees going to be set if they are unpredictable?

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
Dobrodav
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 03:15:29 PM
 #12

That happens if you received your bitcoins in small sums, on lots of different addresses. Solution - its still possible to use 0 fee, or at least real low fee, per Kb. Well, you should use that opportunity and accumulate that bitcents on another own account.

We will  meet in not-so-distant future.
Today`s strange music :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8mCgjbBPMk
Yesterday`s  strange music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uCTyC1FGLw
Gandlaf
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 59


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 03:20:38 PM
 #13


A similar thing happened to me before when someone accidentally sent me 100 1-BTC transactions. I tried sending them back all at once, and it seemed to me that it was not possible to send them without the transaction fee. mestar's post above concurs: If you click "No" that you don't want to pay the fee, the transaction is cancelled.

I ended up paying the guy back with two free 50-BTC transactions, but it still seems like something is wrong.

And I agree with Gandlaf - it is very confusing if the transaction fees can't be anticipated by the amount of the transaction. If the user can't easily tell whether he has 100 individual bitcoins or 100000 of .001 bitcoins, it's going to be frustrating and confusing for him to try to send without knowing the number of kilobytes the transaction will be and therefore how much of a fee he should pay.

Having thought about it a bit a bit more, I think its more than just confusing. In a certain way its debasement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement after all if you look at the situation in the OP, mestars 70 BTC are effectively worth only ~64.3 untainted BTC(potentially even less, given that these fees will be incurred for any future transfers as well; Transfer it 10 times at ~8% fees and you end up with ~30BTC). This is how money dies.
Furthermore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law says that everyone will hang on to their "good money"(untainted/freshly mined BTC) and will be inclined to get rid of their tainted BTC asap. Given that the "tainted" BTC incur transaction fees precisely because they take a lot of work to process and everyone has an incentive to get rid of their tainted BTC first, this should nicely ratchet up the overall workload.

Bitcoin donations: 1hWi34by8KRLEh4san5Eotz5WzU3AJZA5
eturnerx
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile WWW
June 03, 2011, 03:23:57 PM
 #14

That is confusing. Is there a way to consolidate bundles of coins to avoid the project with too many tiny bundles of coins?

WatchMine - get Bitcoin prices and pool stats on your Mobile
Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 03:34:54 PM
 #15


A similar thing happened to me before when someone accidentally sent me 100 1-BTC transactions. I tried sending them back all at once, and it seemed to me that it was not possible to send them without the transaction fee. mestar's post above concurs: If you click "No" that you don't want to pay the fee, the transaction is cancelled.

I ended up paying the guy back with two free 50-BTC transactions, but it still seems like something is wrong.

And I agree with Gandlaf - it is very confusing if the transaction fees can't be anticipated by the amount of the transaction. If the user can't easily tell whether he has 100 individual bitcoins or 100000 of .001 bitcoins, it's going to be frustrating and confusing for him to try to send without knowing the number of kilobytes the transaction will be and therefore how much of a fee he should pay.

Having thought about it a bit a bit more, I think its more than just confusing. In a certain way its debasement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement after all if you look at the situation in the OP, mestars 70 BTC are effectively worth only ~64.3 untainted BTC(potentially even less, given that these fees will be incurred for any future transfers as well; Transfer it 10 times at ~8% fees and you end up with ~30BTC). This is how money dies.
Furthermore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law says that everyone will hang on to their "good money"(untainted/freshly mined BTC) and will be inclined to get rid of their tainted BTC asap. Given that the "tainted" BTC incur transaction fees precisely because they take a lot of work to process and everyone has an incentive to get rid of their tainted BTC first, this should nicely ratchet up the overall workload.

You don't get those fees every time. Just when you make a gigantic transaction, as was done here. This was ~500 .1-.2 inputs, and one output.

In the next client, fees will be more manageable but still, an alternate client that handled fees way better would be pretty cool Smiley

-Garrett
Gandlaf
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 59


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 03:47:10 PM
 #16


You don't get those fees every time. Just when you make a gigantic transaction, as was done here. This was ~500 .1-.2 inputs, and one output.

In the next client, fees will be more manageable but still, an alternate client that handled fees way better would be pretty cool Smiley

-Garrett

I get that you probably will not have fees quite as high as the 8% in this example at every further step. But the principle still applies: X BTC "made up" of many small amounts will incur higher transfer fees than X "whole" ones. Effectively one composite BTC has less purchasing power than a newly mined one due to transfer fees.
What I wrote before in my last post about debasement and Gresham´s law(the incentive to spend composite coins and hoard whole ones) still seems to apply. I don´t see how you can successfully run a currency if some units with the same notional value have less  purchasing power than others.

What am I missing?

Bitcoin donations: 1hWi34by8KRLEh4san5Eotz5WzU3AJZA5
barbarousrelic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 03:48:39 PM
 #17

Fungibility is a crucial characteristic of any money, and it seems that Bitcoin is not completely fungible. I hope this can be fixed, but I fear it's inherent.

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
Dude65535
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 04:00:45 PM
 #18

Fees for a transaction need to be based on the load the put on the network by that transaction since those fees help support the network.

Coins split into very small amounts can regain their full purchasing power if you use small free transactions to combine them into larger chunks. This would take some time though as if you tried to do it quickly the short time between spends would prompt a need for a fee as well.

1DCj8ZwGZXQqQhgv6eUEnWgsxo8BTMj3mT
Alex Beckenham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 04:26:00 PM
 #19

Effectively one composite BTC has less purchasing power than a newly mined one due to transfer fees.

Just as a comparison, let's say you're a hot-dog vendor and a customer wants to pay you with 570 actual pennies. You'd probably want to ask for a surcharge for the inconvenience.

Gandlaf
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 59


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 04:33:26 PM
 #20

Effectively one composite BTC has less purchasing power than a newly mined one due to transfer fees.

Just as a comparison, let's say you're a hot-dog vendor and a customer wants to pay you with 570 actual pennies. You'd probably want to ask for a surcharge for the inconvenience.


Exactly, or maybe I would just refuse to accept them. According to the same logic, freshly mined BTC should command a premium over those of unknown composition!
And there´s your break in fungibility. Let´s assume I run a shop, what do I do? Raise my prices by x% to compensate for the risk? Refuse to accept certain bitcoins? 

Bitcoin donations: 1hWi34by8KRLEh4san5Eotz5WzU3AJZA5
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!