Is Bitcoin still suited to low amount transactions?

[BitMaxz]

I notice this transaction is already been sent or received here https://blockchain.info/tx/3493f7390da8e225a44ded54c413f6c0ced3ec3d566b89c0b3e463928f4ca1aa
According to the op with 250 minutes added included block time now i think i can see the result that +0 and its changing or op is mistaken to added it.
I saw that you are paying a lowest fee they are now relaying on the fee per size of the transaction. i am not paying fee the minimum fee that i paying right now is minimum 20k sat.. because it takes too long to sent if you pay small amount or below the minimum..

[Shiroslullaby]

the problem is that many devs are american and small minded about the world so while they say that 7cents is cheap for a fee they are not thinking of the unbanked world.

Yes as pointed out, while seven cents may not be a large amount of money to most people with access to the internet, to some people this is a much greater amount of money.
Its certainly a good point of debate. What is the appropriate rate for a transaction, should it remain scaling or a fixed rate?
These are important factors in deciding who is the target Bitcoin audience, actually.

[European Central Bank]

What is the appropriate rate for a transaction, should it remain scaling or a fixed rate?

a lot of it is up to the miners and there aren't very many american ones.

[franky1]

What is the appropriate rate for a transaction, should it remain scaling or a fixed rate?

a lot of it is up to the miners and there aren't very many american ones.

majority of miners dont care about the fee's. they just see it as a bonus.
they would add transactions even without fee's.

it will be several decades before fee's become important.
even now with a fee war pools still ignore transactions if it means shaving a few seconds to gain slight advantage over competitive pools to get a reward.

all they care about is the blockreward.

its the dev's that are pushing the fake narative that fee's need to jump up really high soon. all because they want to bait people offchain due to such unneeded expense.

its the same reason even after segwit gets activated people should only expect to get 7tx's .. much like what was expected from 2009+ anyways. its not anything new or any big growth. its just making gestures of goodwill to sway people in their offchain direction

[Soros Shorts]

its the dev's that are pushing the fake narative that fee's need to jump up really high soon. all because they want to bait people offchain due to such unneeded expense.

Seriously speaking though, do you really think that it makes sense for every 7-cent transaction to be seen by everyone and propagated to every node in the world? When building a scalable system you don't just scale up in one direction - you also need to consider partitioning the data, and moving low-value transactions off chain makes perfect sense. When those 7-cent transactions add up to $7 or $70 then they can be consolidated and moved on-chain. The assumption here is that off-chain transaction costs are much cheaper (sub-cent)  and much quicker, though likely less secure.

[DarkIT]

bitcoin transaction may have a minimum, so we can not transact in small amount. bitcoin transactions, has a minimal fee, ie 0.0002 BTC, so you possibly, will not be able to conduct transactions under 0.0002 BTC. besides, if you're doing a mediocre transaction with a small fee, it might cause a delay in the confirmation.

[yayayo]

[FEES-ARE-TOO-HIGH-FOR-BUYING-MY-LOLLY COMPLAIN TROLL CONTENT]

Franky, you're never late when it comes to find a thread to spread your retarded bigblock propaganda. Congratulations, great shilling for your master as always!

Just ignoring the fact that the thread opener is a brand new member and is using a shitty third party service (with Roger Ver as an investor) and not a proper wallet, the following can be said regarding transaction fees:

Bitcoin is not suited for storing every single micro transaction instantly on chain - especially not when inadequate fees are paid for low-priority transactions. You can do it, but you have to pay adequate fees. In the future, there will be the possibility to send micro transactions using payment channels, which will greatly improve speed and costs while at the same time preserving the network decentralization of Bitcoin - an essential property of Bitcoin that malicious actors such as Roger Ver and his sockpuppets like franky1 actively seek to destroy by demanding block sizes so big, that privately owned full Bitcoin nodes will be eradicated because of bandwidth requirements.

ya.ya.yo!

[pooya87]

i don't get why people on this topic are talking about everything except the fact that the transaction in OP had a Lock Time!
it is even possible some nodes rejected his transaction until it was in a block (hence the + 0 minutes in Included In Blocks field on blockchain.info)

[densuj]

I think yes, bitcoin is still suited for low amount transaction  and the fees transaction is not too high about 2k up to 5k Satoshi, except you used wallet bitcoin that apply high fees sending.
Usually i used mycelium wallet bitcoin, the fees is more cheap than btc.com in my experience.

[maydna]

Hi,

I have tried to send 10m BTC to a friend 1:30 ago and it has not been confirmed yet! When I check Blockchain.info, the transaction is not there yet and I see hundreds of transactions per minute appearing there. Considering that miners will choose highest fee transactions first, low amount transactions will starve for confirmation... I have chosen the fee recommended  by the satoshi client and it says that it is probable to be confirmed in the next 25 blocks (250 minutes!). It seems that there is bid of fees and high amount transactions are more keen to pay a higher fee. Therefore, I believe that that speech of no transaction cost with bitcoin has become a fairy tale...


Status: 0/unconfirmed, in memory pool, broadcast through 7 node(s)

Date: 20/12/2016 16:01
To: Murillo 1Bf1gRLpshMxEZXH6Xw6FVRWX6Zcz8BJi4
Debit: -0.01000000 BTC
Transaction fee: -0.00009840 BTC
Net amount: -0.01009840 BTC
Transaction ID: 3493f7390da8e225a44ded54c413f6c0ced3ec3d566b89c0b3e463928f4ca1aa
Output index: 0

i think its not because the low fee or normal fee or higher fee, its because the network have a heavy load for the transaction of sending and receiving so there will be many queue in the list of blockchain. this is the main problem of blockchain network that need to be fix soon because from time to time, the transaction list will become more big than now especially if the price of bitcoin is increase. so i think we have to be patience when we want to make transaction.

[400actforsale]

I don't think the Bitcoin system can support low value transaction now Considering the increased fees due to full blocks (and also Chinese miners mining empty blocks), the fee percentage of those transactions are very high now (e.g. 0.001 BTC for a 2k byte transaction which converts to ~9 inputs maybe from faucets, those inputs may worth 0.15 mBTC each and that 0.001 BTC is already 74% of the amount).

For OP's transaction, the fee don't even reached the 10000 satoshi standard fee even before full (and nearly full) blocks become common and would take a considerable amount of time to confirm even that... I'd recommend you to double spend the bitcoins with a higher fee this time (at least 10000 satoshi). (Just found out the tx already have 64 confirmations...) Next time send your bitcoins with at least 10000 satoshi fee if there's only 1 input and up to 2 output (the payment and your change). If more inputs are used than upgrade your fee to 20000 satoshi or more...

[Derek492]

Try using an alternative coin like Mintcoin. It's much better.

[TastyChillySauce00]

bitcoin transaction may have a minimum, so we can not transact in small amount. bitcoin transactions, has a minimal fee, ie 0.0002 BTC, so you possibly, will not be able to conduct transactions under 0.0002 BTC. besides, if you're doing a mediocre transaction with a small fee, it might cause a delay in the confirmation.

Bitcoin don't have a minimal fee but recommended fee. You can set the fee and no matter how much the fee if you're willing the transaction to be sent then it will be sent. It's all depend on current fee/bytes and sending a transaction with an amount smaller than the minimal fee which you mentioned above ( 0.0002 ) is possible as long the fee meets the current recommended fee by calculating fee/bytes if you expect the transaction to be confirmed fastly.However you can also setting up a transaction with zero fee with the risk of rejected by network or taking few days to get confirmed

[davis196]

Hi,

I have tried to send 10m BTC to a friend 1:30 ago and it has not been confirmed yet! When I check Blockchain.info, the transaction is not there yet and I see hundreds of transactions per minute appearing there. Considering that miners will choose highest fee transactions first, low amount transactions will starve for confirmation... I have chosen the fee recommended  by the satoshi client and it says that it is probable to be confirmed in the next 25 blocks (250 minutes!). It seems that there is bid of fees and high amount transactions are more keen to pay a higher fee. Therefore, I believe that that speech of no transaction cost with bitcoin has become a fairy tale...


Status: 0/unconfirmed, in memory pool, broadcast through 7 node(s)

Date: 20/12/2016 16:01
To: Murillo 1Bf1gRLpshMxEZXH6Xw6FVRWX6Zcz8BJi4
Debit: -0.01000000 BTC
Transaction fee: -0.00009840 BTC
Net amount: -0.01009840 BTC
Transaction ID: 3493f7390da8e225a44ded54c413f6c0ced3ec3d566b89c0b3e463928f4ca1aa
Output index: 0

What`s the point of sending very low amount of btc to someone,like a few satoshis.

It`s pointless.It`s normal for the miners to focus on high fee transactions first.

Nobody said that bitcoin is a "no transaction cost" currency.

Every payment system needs transaction fees in order to work.

[Kakmakr]

Is Bitcoin still suited to low amount transactions?

No its not. Above posts will try to pretend it is, but its not currently and it never was.
In future, there will be alternate ways of paying with bitcoin with offchain solutions so in future yes.

Ok, what other methods are currenctly cheaper than Bitcoin to send micro transactions? None. Have you used wire transfers or remittance services lately to send, say $2 to a friend in another country? No, because it is impossible to do with traditional payment systems. The fees charged, will consume the amount you were trying to send. This can be done with Bitcoin, for just a few cents, so stop spreading noncense and give credit where credit is due. ^smile^

[qiwoman2]

I think although the transaction fees have gone up, I still think it is worth using Bitcoin for general transactions. I also try to make sure I am sending a decent fee because at the end of the day, everyone needs to make money including the miners and the pools etc.

[aso118]

in my country, i can send 0,03 euros (0,04 mBTC) with 0,06 euros (0,12 mBTC in normal priority and 0,05 mBTC with LOW priority) of fees (with my phone = android bitcoin wallet schildbach).

so, yes, you can always emit small transactions (and pay somes article in website for example).

If you are paying more in transaction fees than the amount you are sending across, it really doesn't make sense. People typically look at transaction fees as the percentage of the amount sent across. Transaction fees of more than 100% would break the back of most business models.

[franky1]

its the dev's that are pushing the fake narative that fee's need to jump up really high soon. all because they want to bait people offchain due to such unneeded expense.

Seriously speaking though, do you really think that it makes sense for every 7-cent transaction to be seen by everyone and propagated to every node in the world? When building a scalable system you don't just scale up in one direction - you also need to consider partitioning the data, and moving low-value transactions off chain makes perfect sense. When those 7-cent transactions add up to $7 or $70 then they can be consolidated and moved on-chain. The assumption here is that off-chain transaction costs are much cheaper (sub-cent)  and much quicker, though likely less secure.

yes to less secure. but also
no to faster
faster is in the eye of the beholder. although fast to sign a multisig. the settlement due to CLTV and CSV is the same as the old banking/paypal system. funds are confirmed, but then have a maturity before they can be spend(CLTV) which means its like "unavailable balance". then there is the chargeback ability(CSV) that allows the other party to bypass CLTV and spend funds to themselves if they feel you have done payment theft.

no to cheaper
put it this way, the average real world person uses an ATM/debit/credit card 42 times a month.
LN's current concepts are to pay a hub to stay open 24/7 for 10 days, cover onchain deposit and onchain settlement aswell as the numeric representation of how many possible transactions can occur within the "channel". the upfront prepay deposit amount required to open a channel they deem as 0.006btc ($4.70) for 10 days https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.html (as shown in the 'results'.

which we know 10 days is only a third of a month so 14 real world transactions average over 10 days.
which is 33cents/tx

i cant see any third world country or anyone agreeing to pay $4.70 upfront just to use a service for 10 days.

LN is not the 'scalability' cure/solution. it is simply a side service for moral spammers (faucets, gambling sites, adsense) not real people wanting to do their occasional shop for a loaf of bread.

again the devs are thinking about pricing bitcoin based on american income. not based on using code to control DDoS attempts. not using code to keep bitcoin open and border/barrierless for anyone.
its turning into a system only for the economically rich westerners

(disclosure: im a white brit with enough btc to happily retire, but i can atleast think selflessly to see the bigger picture)

[sportis]

[FEES-ARE-TOO-HIGH-FOR-BUYING-MY-LOLLY COMPLAIN TROLL CONTENT]

Franky, you're never late when it comes to find a thread to spread your retarded bigblock propaganda. Congratulations, great shilling for your master as always!

Just ignoring the fact that the thread opener is a brand new member and is using a shitty third party service (with Roger Ver as an investor) and not a proper wallet, the following can be said regarding transaction fees:

Bitcoin is not suited for storing every single micro transaction instantly on chain - especially not when inadequate fees are paid for low-priority transactions. You can do it, but you have to pay adequate fees. In the future, there will be the possibility to send micro transactions using payment channels, which will greatly improve speed and costs while at the same time preserving the network decentralization of Bitcoin - an essential property of Bitcoin that malicious actors such as Roger Ver and his sockpuppets like franky1 actively seek to destroy by demanding block sizes so big, that privately owned full Bitcoin nodes will be eradicated because of bandwidth requirements.

ya.ya.yo!

Bitcoin has a big disadvantage, compared to other payment systems in every day life where we buy things which have not a big cost but we need a speedy transaction. I agree that micropayments channel is a big improvement in this way. Many people we will use it more often than now.

[Tipsters]

Bitcoin is still suited for low amount transaction but it takes time to be confirmed on blockchain since fees are included on every transaction we made. And the higher the fee you pay, the fastest is gets confirmed. But sometimes this doesn't matter on blockchain due to large transaction traffic on the site.