Why does everyone keep calling them fees? They're not fees, they're BIDS!

[blablahblah]

When one pays a so-called "fee" for a transaction, it's not really a fee at all. It's a bid! It's simply bidding for space in the next available block.

So-called miners are the entities auctioning block-space to the highest bidders.

I've been wondering why there has been so much confusion surrounding the whole "increasing the block-space" thing, and I think it at least partly boils down to a highly misleading nickname. They're not fees, they're bids!

The way I understand it, every time a new block is discovered, an auction occurs and individual kilobytes of that block are auctioned off to the highest bidders. However, at the moment there's a problem because it seems like such a crappy opaque process with very little market transparency. This needs to be improved. Before requesting any transaction, I want to know the "going rate" and the estimated delivery time depending on how much i BID.

Agree? Disagree? Please discuss.

[refaelsh]

When one pays a so-called "fee" for a transaction, it's not really a fee at all. It's a bid! It's simply bidding for space in the next available block.

So-called miners are the entities auctioning block-space to the highest bidders.

I've been wondering why there has been so much confusion surrounding the whole "increasing the block-space" thing, and I think it at least partly boils down to a highly misleading nickname. They're not fees, they're bids!

The way I understand it, every time a new block is discovered, an auction occurs and individual kilobytes of that block are auctioned off to the highest bidders. However, at the moment there's a problem because it seems like such a crappy opaque process with very little market transparency. This needs to be improved. Before requesting any transaction, I want to know the "going rate" and the estimated delivery time depending on how much i BID.

Agree? Disagree? Please discuss.

Totally agree.

[codebyte]

When one pays a so-called "fee" for a transaction, it's not really a fee at all. It's a bid! It's simply bidding for space in the next available block.

So-called miners are the entities auctioning block-space to the highest bidders.

I've been wondering why there has been so much confusion surrounding the whole "increasing the block-space" thing, and I think it at least partly boils down to a highly misleading nickname. They're not fees, they're bids!

The way I understand it, every time a new block is discovered, an auction occurs and individual kilobytes of that block are auctioned off to the highest bidders. However, at the moment there's a problem because it seems like such a crappy opaque process with very little market transparency. This needs to be improved. Before requesting any transaction, I want to know the "going rate" and the estimated delivery time depending on how much i BID.

Agree? Disagree? Please discuss.

Agree.

[blablahblah]

Hmm OK, so I guess that that's not so controversial then

Following up on that: is it supposed to be part of Bitcoin's core functionality to manage this "block-space bidding" market?

Price history -- core Bitcoin thing or 3rd-party widget/add-on?

Is it possible to withdraw bids?
-I suspect it is, but is there a user interface for it?

Is it possible to see what others are bidding for the same block?

Maybe I'm just behind the times and some of the light-weight clients provide more bidding features than bitcoind?

[Kluge]

All the information's publicly posted, so I don't see why it would be too difficult for a client to pull this information.

It should be noted that a .0005BTC bid is not equal among miners, core rules ignored for a minute. Certain pools create certain allowances, bans, and modifiers for different transactions, as well as perhaps certain entities. The SDice patch is a good relevant example. The worrisome spat of no-tx blocks a while back is also a good example of "the rules" being modified - because the rules are more default settings than rules, as I understand it. If you made Luke-Jr really mad, for instance, he may have Eligius ignore all transactions coming from addresses known to be yours., and IIRC, Eligius is known for having irregular bid rules.

Thus, there probably isn't particularly accurate information on whether or not the particular tx you send out will be included in the next block. But, you could get a fuzzy idea using simple information, assuming everyone uses the default bid weight settings.

[SaintFlow]

Change in semantics here might lead to a change in behaviour.

First of let me say how much I like the general idea of what
is commenly know as fees to be called bids.

I wonder when this becomes the rule - will the day of
bitcoin state of the art come when we have special developed
clients for each "nolonger called mining- but now payment
announcementpool" so that we bid in there personally
held auction?

[blablahblah]

Change in semantics here might lead to a change in behaviour.

First of let me say how much I like the general idea of what
is commenly know as fees to be called bids.

Thanks for that! I don't imagine for a moment that I could sway everyone single-handedly, but I hope this discussion helps! Until recently I wasn't 100% certain about the 'fees' really being bids -- perhaps there was some special trick or unique behaviour that made them different? But it never added up -- a 'fee' that you could alter or choose to not pay altogether, and then the request might or might not not get accepted regardless?? So now I've made this thread and hope that as many people as possible start using the more standard terminology.

All the information's publicly posted, so I don't see why it would be too difficult for a client to pull this information.

Yep. Scraping data from the block-chain / blockchain.info etc. I think I've already seen a site that shows a bid vs confirmation time scatter-plot, so I think it would be nice to have something along those lines integrated into a wallet client.

It should be noted that a .0005BTC bid is not equal among miners, core rules ignored for a minute. Certain pools create certain allowances, bans, and modifiers for different transactions, as well as perhaps certain entities. The SDice patch is a good relevant example. The worrisome spat of no-tx blocks a while back is also a good example of "the rules" being modified - because the rules are more default settings than rules, as I understand it. If you made Luke-Jr really mad, for instance, he may have Eligius ignore all transactions coming from addresses known to be yours., and IIRC, Eligius is known for having irregular bid rules.

Thus, there probably isn't particularly accurate information on whether or not the particular tx you send out will be included in the next block. But, you could get a fuzzy idea using simple information, assuming everyone uses the default bid weight settings.

I guess people could even investigate individual Pools' pricing policies, so that you end up with per-pool price indicators... It just all requires time and effort, I guess.

I wonder when this becomes the rule - will the day of
bitcoin state of the art come when we have special developed
clients for each "nolonger called mining- but now payment
announcementpool" so that we bid in there personally
held auction?

Quite possible. With multi-sig transactions starting to come out, I can imagine all kinds of cool possibilities e.g.: miners gain loyal customers who have their transactions cleared exclusively through them. It's just that calling bids 'fees' so confusing!

[Anon136]

When one pays a so-called "fee" for a transaction, it's not really a fee at all. It's a bid! It's simply bidding for space in the next available block.

So-called miners are the entities auctioning block-space to the highest bidders.

I've been wondering why there has been so much confusion surrounding the whole "increasing the block-space" thing, and I think it at least partly boils down to a highly misleading nickname. They're not fees, they're bids!

The way I understand it, every time a new block is discovered, an auction occurs and individual kilobytes of that block are auctioned off to the highest bidders. However, at the moment there's a problem because it seems like such a crappy opaque process with very little market transparency. This needs to be improved. Before requesting any transaction, I want to know the "going rate" and the estimated delivery time depending on how much i BID.

Agree? Disagree? Please discuss.

a very astute observation

[blockbet.net]

If they were called bids, then I would assume that I could increase my bid at any time - which would actually be pretty cool. If I'm not seeing my 0.0005 BTC "bid" getting through in 30 minutes or so and I'm getting kind of frustrated, I could double or triple my bid to increase the likelihood of it going through in the next few minutes.

[markm]

If they were called bids, then I would assume that I could increase my bid at any time - which would actually be pretty cool. If I'm not seeing my 0.0005 BTC "bid" getting through in 30 minutes or so and I'm getting kind of frustrated, I could double or triple my bid to increase the likelihood of it going through in the next few minutes.

Okay, fine then, they are "tips" or "gratuities"

-MarkM-

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Hmm OK, so I guess that that's not so controversial then

Never underestimate how much semantics affect people's ability to think clearly.

Your suggestion is extremely valuable, in my opinion, and there are quite a few other misnomers in the Bitcoin world and especially surrounding the blocksize issue. Using accurate terminology is crucial for arriving at sound judgments.

[blablahblah]

If they were called bids, then I would assume that I could increase my bid at any time - which would actually be pretty cool. If I'm not seeing my 0.0005 BTC "bid" getting through in 30 minutes or so and I'm getting kind of frustrated, I could double or triple my bid to increase the likelihood of it going through in the next few minutes.

Then I guess we need to have this discussion! It's my understanding that the bitcoind client automatically rebroadcasts transaction requests if they don't go through. At first glance it seems like it shouldn't be that hard to allow users to increase their bid, as you say. It shouldn't require any modification to the protocol, just a better GUI that gives more control over the bid size that gets rebroadcast.

[SaintFlow]

If they were called bids, then I would assume that I could increase my bid at any time - which would actually be pretty cool. If I'm not seeing my 0.0005 BTC "bid" getting through in 30 minutes or so and I'm getting kind of frustrated, I could double or triple my bid to increase the likelihood of it going through in the next few minutes.

Then I guess we need to have this discussion! It's my understanding that the bitcoind client automatically rebroadcasts transaction requests if they don't go through. At first glance it seems like it shouldn't be that hard to allow users to increase their bid, as you say. It shouldn't require any modification to the protocol, just a better GUI that gives more control over the bid size that gets rebroadcast.

Why is there need for much discussion at all ?
Garvin and related devs should be offered a look at the situation and see if they wish to just change the label in the official client.
Or in the alternative clients devs should be informed about this thoughtframeshift.

Increasing the bid should be part of the core functions of the official client - i imagine that your unconfirmed transactions should have the ability to update the bid higher - never lower.

[w1R903]

If they were called bids, then I would assume that I could increase my bid at any time - which would actually be pretty cool. If I'm not seeing my 0.0005 BTC "bid" getting through in 30 minutes or so and I'm getting kind of frustrated, I could double or triple my bid to increase the likelihood of it going through in the next few minutes.

I really like this idea, and it's a feature I've wished since I first started using btc back in 2010.  I can' t count the number of times I've send a fairly important transaction, only to realize that I had fees set on 0 for whatever reason (newly installed client, just send unimportant transaction, etc.).

[ProfMac]

If they were called bids, then I would assume that I could increase my bid at any time - which would actually be pretty cool. If I'm not seeing my 0.0005 BTC "bid" getting through in 30 minutes or so and I'm getting kind of frustrated, I could double or triple my bid to increase the likelihood of it going through in the next few minutes.

Create a double spend transaction with the same inputs and outputs, but a different "confirmation urgency bid"

[ProfMac]

When one pays a so-called "fee" for a transaction, it's not really a fee at all. It's a bid! It's simply bidding for space in the next available block.

So-called miners are the entities auctioning block-space to the highest bidders.

I've been wondering why there has been so much confusion surrounding the whole "increasing the block-space" thing, and I think it at least partly boils down to a highly misleading nickname. They're not fees, they're bids!

The way I understand it, every time a new block is discovered, an auction occurs and individual kilobytes of that block are auctioned off to the highest bidders. However, at the moment there's a problem because it seems like such a crappy opaque process with very little market transparency. This needs to be improved. Before requesting any transaction, I want to know the "going rate" and the estimated delivery time depending on how much i BID.

Agree? Disagree? Please discuss.

I always understood that they were bids.  It's not clear to me how anyone could view them any differently.

[Sukrim]

If they were called bids, then I would assume that I could increase my bid at any time - which would actually be pretty cool. If I'm not seeing my 0.0005 BTC "bid" getting through in 30 minutes or so and I'm getting kind of frustrated, I could double or triple my bid to increase the likelihood of it going through in the next few minutes.

Create a double spend transaction with the same inputs and outputs, but a different "confirmation urgency bid"

Currently most clients in the network will block/not relay this second transaction though.

[blablahblah]

If they were called bids, then I would assume that I could increase my bid at any time - which would actually be pretty cool. If I'm not seeing my 0.0005 BTC "bid" getting through in 30 minutes or so and I'm getting kind of frustrated, I could double or triple my bid to increase the likelihood of it going through in the next few minutes.

Create a double spend transaction with the same inputs and outputs, but a different "confirmation urgency bid"

Currently most clients in the network will block/not relay this second transaction though.

From a user perspective this is incomprehensible. Although I don't expect the classic "full node" to start implementing lots of additional GUI functionality, I would expect that the light-weight GUI clients make the bidding process convenient, or at least functional.

[Tomatocage]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say it's because they're called ”fees” in the Bitcoin client.

[marhjan]

Yeah sorry they're fees plain and simple.  Called fees in the client, it's a transaction fee.  It's fine if you want to 'think of them as bids' whatever, but no they're fees