[UPDATE: 2015-05-10] Bitcoin Core soft-fork "No Forced TX Fee" v0.10.1 available

[gmaxwell]

I may have to try it soon, i have tens of thousands of single satoshi inputs, if it works i could make a satoshi dice single satoshi cleaning client that only see's single satoshi inputs and inputs the size of the fee (0.0005 would be good) and sends with whatever minimal fee will work

How did you end up with that?

The rule nodes apply is MINFEE per KB, so no a single 0.0005 fee wouldn't help you. A single fee works when creating many tiny outputs.

[1715032299]

1715032299

[1715032299]

1715032299

[1715032299]

1715032299

[1715032299]

1715032299

[drakahn]

I may have to try it soon, i have tens of thousands of single satoshi inputs, if it works i could make a satoshi dice single satoshi cleaning client that only see's single satoshi inputs and inputs the size of the fee (0.0005 would be good) and sends with whatever minimal fee will work

How did you end up with that?

losses from satoshi dice

The rule nodes apply is MINFEE per KB, so no a single 0.0005 fee wouldn't help you. A single fee works when creating many tiny outputs.

Thats what i thought may happen, some of the transactions before i built a modified client where 90+kb with a ~5 bitcent fee to send less than a bitcent, so i would need to figure out how many inputs to each kilobyte and make transactions accordingly, the client i will make if i end up with too many single satoshi's tied up before there is a way to handle them "built in" could still work with the normal fee calculation, but it would be nice if there we're nodes that followed different rules to maybe pay less... for now the satoshi's can sit in scattered wallets (and hopefully making new wallets is a thing of the past...) if it gets to the point that the dust is worth collecting, there will probably already be a solution

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

2012-08-15 Update:

NFTF - version 0.6.3 released.

Fresh tags - nftf-v0.6.3, nftf-v0.6.2.1 are avaiable for download.
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/tags

Also, I may be making a new repo with Gentoo ebuilds avaiable soon, since I am creating them anyway for my Gentoo.
So stay tuned.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

2012-11-04 Update:

NFTF - versions 0.7.0 & 0.7.1 released.

Fresh tags - nftf-v0.7.0, nftf-v0.7.1 are avaiable for download.
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/tags

----
BTW, since i got bored, here is a picture of grandma roaming the skies on a dolphin (which is kind of not related to the topic, but who cares):

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

2013-01-27 Update:

NFTF - version 0.7.2 released.

Fresh tag - nftf-v0.7.2 is avaiable for download.
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/tags

MASTER branch was also updated to latest Bitcoin version:
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf

[chriswilmer]

I'm confused by this thread. I thought the fee was always voluntary anyway... ?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I'm confused by this thread. I thought the fee was always voluntary anyway... ?

Nope, it is not voluntary if the mainline client's algorithm decides so.

This is why i created this fork, because i dislike some decisions of the client. If I want to send money without fee and risk losing it (but the risk is very very low), that should be MY decision, not developer's decision.

Why didn't the devs simply make an advanced configuration setting for that is beyond me.

[dansmith]

Hi, could you please change "2012-01-27" Update: to 2013 ?

Why didn't the devs simply make an advanced configuration setting for that is beyond me.

Of course, they try to subtly nudge us to pay miners fee.
Good we have folks like youself, who give people choice

[DeathAndTaxes]

Hi, could you please change "2012-01-27" Update: to 2013 ?

Why didn't the devs simply make an advanced configuration setting for that is beyond me.

Of course, they try to subtly nudge us to pay miners fee.
Good we have folks like youself, who give people choice

The min tx fees are tiny and make up a negligible portion of miners revenue (not to be confused with optional fees on high priority txs).

If a sufficient number of nodes are running code which doesn't enforce the anti-spam rules it would allow an attacker to trivially cripple the Bitcoin network in both bandwidth usage and storage requirements for a token amount of money.  So that is a "good thing" I guess.  Also this fork allows noobs to create transactions which may takes days or weeks to be included in a block leading to all kinds of confusion and frustration.  Worse when that happens the tx will seem to "Disapear" as it can't be seen by the receiver due to other nodes enforcing the rules.

I personally (as a merchant) have experienced the "fun" of this.  A noob with little understanding of Bitcoin saw the "no fees" fork and figured it must be better.  I mean those evil miners trying to force him to pay a fraction of a penny only on massive bloated spammy transactions.  Can't have that right?  He created an order with us and our site gave him a payment address.  He sent coins but of course with no fee nodes between him and us dropped the transaction so our processing node couldn't even see the tx.  Anyways long story short the customer is freaking out, thinking we are scamming him.  He can "see" he sent the coins but we can't see the coins being sent, it isn't getting include in any block.  Try explaining that concept to a noob.  Before the tx is included in a block 16 hours later, the order expires and the price drops massively so when the funds do finally clear we can't honor the price and refund the order.  Of course the uninformed noob thinks this is our fault and we are trying to scam him because the price dropped but we can't honor coins we don't have access to.

So yeah... this is a wonderful fork which will greatly help increase adoption of Bitcoin.

[dansmith]

So yeah... this is a wonderful fork which will greatly help increase adoption of Bitcoin.

I second that.
The only utility in NFTF fork for me is testing my 0-confirmation payment platform against double-spending attempts.
But again, I guess I always could roll my own build.

EDIT: I take it back, since we have createrawtransaction API, 0-fee transactions can be sent from a regular build. So, no, there is probably no utility in this fork for me

[Atruk]

The min tx fees are tiny and make up a negligible portion of miners revenue (not to be confused with optional fees on high priority txs).

If a sufficient number of nodes are running code which doesn't enforce the anti-spam rules it would allow an attacker to trivially cripple the Bitcoin network in both bandwidth usage and storage requirements for a token amount of money.  So that is a "good thing" I guess.  Also this fork allows noobs to create transactions which may takes days or weeks to be included in a block leading to all kinds of confusion and frustration.  Worse when that happens the tx will seem to "Disapear" as it can't be seen by the receiver due to other nodes enforcing the rules.

I personally (as a merchant) have experienced the "fun" of this.  A noob with little understanding of Bitcoin saw the "no fees" fork and figured it must be better.  I mean those evil miners trying to force him to pay a fraction of a penny only on massive bloated spammy transactions.  Can't have that right?  He created an order with us and our site gave him a payment address.  He sent coins but of course with no fee nodes between him and us dropped the transaction so our processing node couldn't even see the tx.  Anyways long story short the customer is freaking out, thinking we are scamming him.  He can "see" he sent the coins but we can't see the coins being sent, it isn't getting include in any block.  Try explaining that concept to a noob.  Before the tx is included in a block 16 hours later, the order expires and the price drops massively so when the funds do finally clear we can't honor the price and refund the order.  Of course the uninformed noob thinks this is our fault and we are trying to scam him because the price dropped but we can't honor coins we don't have access to.

So yeah... this is a wonderful fork which will greatly help increase adoption of Bitcoin.

Lately I've been having issues getting high priority transactions sent to me confirmed when there's no optional fees paid. It's a pain in the ass when I'm waiting for these coins that I would very much like to bundle with some of my own, slap a fee on, and make a purchase in anything resembling a timely manner.

Ever since the block halving, which is part of a planned process to gradually move from  a subsidy to fee supported mining paradigm, omitting or underpaying fees seems to become increasingly less feasible for any transaction that is the slightest bit time sensitive. As gmaxwell pointed out many times, the people who stand to suffer the most hurt from a no fee client are the people who are new, playing with the idea of bitcoin, and don't have coins of sufficient size or age to be useful if they are sent without fees.

The double spending mitigation done by Satoshidice, even just the parts they talk about, is going to make no fee transactions even more futile in the long run as merchants dealing in low value transaction start to adopt similar measure to mitigate the risk of double spends while still accepting healthy looking (attractive fee containing) transactions.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Hi, could you please change "2012-01-27" Update: to 2013 ?

Why didn't the devs simply make an advanced configuration setting for that is beyond me.

Of course, they try to subtly nudge us to pay miners fee.
Good we have folks like youself, who give people choice

The min tx fees are tiny and make up a negligible portion of miners revenue (not to be confused with optional fees on high priority txs).

If a sufficient number of nodes are running code which doesn't enforce the anti-spam rules

You are incorrect, my fork does enforce anti-spam rules. This has already been brought up before.

It does not relay invalid transaction without enough fees. The code i changed applies only to sending your own coins, not to relaying any coins.

Hi, could you please change "2012-01-27" Update: to 2013 ?

Done, sorry for the mess.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

But again, I guess I always could roll my own build.
EDIT: I take it back, since we have createrawtransaction API, 0-fee transactions can be sent from a regular build. So, no, there is probably no utility in this fork for me

This "fork" is just a simple patch i made for historical purposes.

I want to remember and always have access to sending 0-fee transactions easily. That is all.

[BitHits]

*BUMP*

Anyone got win32 binaries for this?

Also any plans for 0.8.0 version ?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Also any plans for 0.8.0 version ?

0.8.0 is coming slowly, probably this week.

However i do not use Windows at all and have no interest in it, so you will have to build it yourself.

It builds exactly the same way as mainline version does. Instructions for building mainline version are here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5851.msg86700#msg86700
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/587/how-do-i-build-bitcoin-source-in-windows-7

[HiveLibrary]

Can we have a fork where someone is hit by lightning every time they decide to sit in the middle of traffic to express their freedom?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Can we have a fork where someone is hit by lightning every time they decide to sit in the middle of traffic to express their freedom?

Let me get your point straight: Who should be hit by lightning specifically ?

PS.
Unfortunately that would be a fork of reality, which is not easily done unless you are the creator.

[Raoul Duke]

Can we have a fork where someone is hit by lightning every time they decide to sit in the middle of traffic to express their freedom?

Let me get your point straight: Who should be hit by lightning specifically ?

I think he means those people who manifest themselves by occupying roads, bridges, etc., so that would be something like 80% or 90% of the population of my country, where almost everyone done it at least once in life lol

[HiveLibrary]

Can we have a fork where someone is hit by lightning every time they decide to sit in the middle of traffic to express their freedom?

Let me get your point straight: Who should be hit by lightning specifically ?

I think he means those people who manifest themselves by occupying roads, bridges, etc., so that would be something like 80% or 90% of the population of my country, where almost everyone done it at least once in life lol

People who occupy to protest are fine. Nothing wrong with resistance. It's the aimless granulated freedom which puts all its money on leaves in the forest vs trees debate.

The leaves want to choose!

[astutiumRob]

I'm confused by this thread. I thought the fee was always voluntary anyway... ?

Nope, it is not voluntary if the mainline client's algorithm decides so.

I've no issue with enforced fees, but using the standard windows client, doing some testing with bitcoin, have paid more than 5 times the transaction value in fees - somewhat disproportionate - makes it just like a bank