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

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I would have your client be better and more simple if you are really gonna mess around with txfee. You can get rid of the confusing "this is over the minimum size" message. However, no TX fee = block bloat DOS tool. A naughty boy could scrape the forum and the net for bitcoin addresses and send them all .00000001 thousands of times for $10.

You are talking about a "naughty boy" who cannot change the code himself.
It will still be easy for all technical types/hackers/people with a lot of money to change the mainline client and send as many spam/dust transactions as they want.

No, a "naughty boy" who can't change the software other people are using. The DDOS protection comes not from the fact that your client won't do it, but from the refusal of most potential neighbors to relay it and miners to miner it. Your client's refusal is your protection from the protection.

Didn't I say like 5 times in this topic that i didn't touch any relaying code, did I ?

This is what I am talking about the entire thread (about the devs not letting me create transaction without a fee), were you actually listening ?

[1713430927]

1713430927

[1713430927]

1713430927

[Gavin Andresen]

A long-term fix for transaction fees (as opposed to the ad-hoc "we'll just try to guess what the 'right' fees are") is high on my priority list for bitcoin. There are only two very-high-priority things on my bitcoin wish list:  fix scaling issues and make sure we have any infrastructure in place to support ultra-high-security wallets. Fixing transaction fees is a scaling issue.

"Pick a fee and hope my transaction makes it into a block" is NOT the right answer. And we've already seen what happens when there is a mismatch between miner transaction fee policies and client transaction fees (remember the big backlog of low-priority transactions we had a couple of months ago?).

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

First, thank you for responding at last.
I didn't realize that i will have to make a fork to get your attention.

"Pick a fee and hope my transaction makes it into a block" is NOT the right answer. And we've already seen what happens when there is a mismatch between miner transaction fee policies and client transaction fees (remember the big backlog of low-priority transactions we had a couple of months ago?).

Of course i realize this is not the proper solution to the problem, this is only a temporary fix.

As i said earlier in this topic, there should be additional dialog saying like "Are you sure you want to do this ? Your coins may get lost forever", which perhaps only shows up when "expert mode" is selected either in bitcoin config or in preferences somewhere in the GUI.

The whole point is, forcing a fee on everybody is so very very, VERY not libertarian. I am a free man, and if i want to risk losing my money, then so be it. That is my choice.

I hate when somebody imposes something on me. I want to be given a choice. Always. Isn't this the whole point of open source ?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

So I guess no mainline client developer is going to talk to me seriously about this.

Somehow, I am not surprised.

[Matt Corallo]

First, thank you for responding at last.
I didn't realize that i will have to make a fork to get your attention.

This has been discussed at length by gavin and others long before this fork.

Of course i realize this is not the proper solution to the problem, this is only a temporary fix.

As i said earlier in this topic, there should be additional dialog saying like "Are you sure you want to do this ? Your coins may get lost forever", which perhaps only shows up when "expert mode" is selected either in bitcoin config or in preferences somewhere in the GUI.

Yes, but users are, in general, stupid and will do it anyway, and generate a ton of not-even-relayed transactions, then complain that their transactions take forever to confirm.  If you want to help, think through, suggest, take comments on, and implement a new fee system which solves the issue instead of duplicating effort on a patch that has already been done (several times).  Or, if you don't get around to that, just wait, sipa is working on a new solution which could hopefully solve the no-confirm issue, and its probably a 4.1 or 4.2 feature.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Yes, but users are, in general, stupid and will do it anyway,

Easy. Add expert settings in config file.
So called "stupid" users usually don't know what config file is and how to use it.

Problem solved.

If you want to help, think through,

Already done.

suggest,

Done.

take comments on,

Done.

and implement a new fee system

Can't do.
I can diff, merge, patch, fork, compile, package, change minor things, but I cannot develop things with medium to big complexity on my own as it would be irresponsible & dangerous with my minimal C++ skill.

So I think I did all I could here.

[Matt Corallo]

Already done.

Uh, where? As Gavin pointed out, allowing users to send no-fee transactions which wont even be relayed is not a solution, instead the fee algorithms (which currently arent very good) need to be redone into something more workable.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Already done.

Uh, where? As Gavin pointed out, allowing users to send no-fee transactions which wont even be relayed is not a solution, instead the fee algorithms (which currently arent very good) need to be redone into something more workable.

I am talking about thinking this whole case over, which is already done.
And my conclusion is that experts settings should be added for people who want to risk their money.

[theymos]

The solution is to eliminate the risk. Once 0-confirmation transactions can be reversed easily, the entire transaction fee issue can be basically forgotten about.

Until then, making it very difficult to send low-fee transactions is necessary. There are some types of transactions that will be universally rejected.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Until then, making it very difficult to send low-fee transactions is necessary.

Very difficult, but not impossible.

BTW,
Because of Gavin's aggressive responses to my pointing out of an obvious bug I am now more convinced than ever that this is a typical Mining Cartel Scam™.
Not nice.

[Matt Corallo]

Until then, making it very difficult to send low-fee transactions is necessary.

Very difficult, but not impossible.

It isnt impossible, due to patches like the one I wrote quite some time ago and this one, its always been possible its FLOSS.  But its also a free market, that means if miners dont want your transaction, you are going to have to mine yourself, that the developers have no control over...period

BTW,
Because of Gavin's aggressive responses to my pointing out of an obvious bug I am now more convinced than ever that this is a typical Mining Cartel Scam™.
Not nice.

Did you even read Gavin's response?

A long-term fix for transaction fees (as opposed to the ad-hoc "we'll just try to guess what the 'right' fees are") is high on my priority list for bitcoin. There are only two very-high-priority things on my bitcoin wish list:  fix scaling issues and make sure we have any infrastructure in place to support ultra-high-security wallets. Fixing transaction fees is a scaling issue.

Seems to indicate that he is very interested in fixing the underlying problem instead of hacking up the code to make a branch that doesnt even work. Remember that Gavin is not in charge of any of the miners, and all of the largest miners run modified bitcoin daemons with custom transaction handling anyway.  There is no cartel here, just miners who will accept any transactions with fees and dont care to support transactions that create a larger load on the network as a whole without fees. This is Open-source, no one gets paid to do this, not gavin, not sipa, noone.  If you want a solution to the problem, you need to make one (and again, this is no where near a solution as the transactions it generates dont get relayed or included in blocks, so you might as well just not create the transactions) or wait until someone has time to come up with, and code a solution in their unpaid free time.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Seems to indicate that he is very interested in fixing the underlying problem instead of hacking up the code to make a branch that doesnt even work

How do you know it doesn't work ? Did you even try to compile it ?

Did you even read Gavin's response?

A long-term fix for transaction fees (as opposed to the ad-hoc "we'll just try to guess what the 'right' fees are") is high on my priority list for bitcoin. There are only two very-high-priority things on my bitcoin wish list:  fix scaling issues and make sure we have any infrastructure in place to support ultra-high-security wallets. Fixing transaction fees is a scaling issue.

. Remember that Gavin is not in charge of any of the miners, and all of the largest miners run modified bitcoin daemons with custom transaction handling anyway.  There is no cartel here, just miners who will accept any transactions with fees and dont care to support transactions that create a larger load on the network as a whole without fees. This is Open-source, no one gets paid to do this, not gavin, not sipa, noone.  If you want a solution to the problem, you need to make one (and again, this is no where near a solution as the transactions it generates dont get relayed or included in blocks, so you might as well just not create the transactions) or wait until someone has time to come up with, and code a solution in their unpaid free time.

Sorry, still not convinced.

----
BTW.

Project update.

- I have merged back all of the current mainline client changes back into the fork.
- Between others, Polish translation was added by somebody into the mainline client
- Small code beauty & compatibility changes in the fork.

[Matt Corallo]

Seems to indicate that he is very interested in fixing the underlying problem instead of hacking up the code to make a branch that doesnt even work

How do you know it doesn't work ? Did you even try to compile it ?

Oh, I have no doubt it compiles and runs, but remember transactions it creates oftenalmost always will not be relayed or confirmed.

Sorry, still not convinced.

Lol, ok have fun with that, and people here wonder why people laugh at the bitcoin community at-large.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Seems to indicate that he is very interested in fixing the underlying problem instead of hacking up the code to make a branch that doesnt even work

How do you know it doesn't work ? Did you even try to compile it ?

Oh, I have no doubt it compiles and runs, but remember transactions it creates oftenalmost always will not be relayed or confirmed.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. I find this discussion completely useless & unnecessary.

EOT.

[Matt Corallo]

Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. I find this discussion completely useless & unnecessary.

EOT.

Yes, I have no idea what Im talking about, after having written a more full-featured version of this patch a month ago.  Also, the fact that theymos and Gavin agree with me seems to indicate that you are absolutely right and the entire world is a conspiracy to defraud you of your bitcoins.  I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to explain the actual solution and problem to you.  Can we get this thread locked?

[Paperweight]

Paranoia will destroy ya.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. I find this discussion completely useless & unnecessary.

EOT.

Yes, I have no idea what Im talking about, after having written a more full-featured version of this patch a month ago.

The fact is, i have been using 0.3.20 all the time now, and no coins were lost.
So i think you are talking jibberish nevertheless.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. I find this discussion completely useless & unnecessary.

EOT.

entire world is a conspiracy to defraud you of your bitcoins.  

Nobody is saying anything about conspiracy.
It is just a "common ground" of most prominent miners & developers. They all invested money in mining, so why would they act differently ?

Too bad the side effect is normal users are completely unnecessarily ripped off (for small money but still).

Can we get this thread locked?

And what would be the reason for that ?
Can't you just stop talking instead ?

[Matt Corallo]

The fact is, i have been using 0.3.20 all the time now, and no coins were lost.
So i think you are talking jibberish nevertheless.

0.3.20 is different than this patch in that 0.3.20 doesnt force fees based on the same ruleset as later releases, but does still force fees in some cases.  This patch doesnt ever force fees and can thus often generate transactions which wont relay.

Nobody is saying anything about conspiracy.
It is just a "common ground" of most prominent miners & developers. They all invested money in mining, so why would they act differently ?

Too bad the side effect is normal users are completely unnecessarily ripped off (for small money but still).

Actually quite the opposite.  All the lead developers aren't miners at all. They are just users of bitcoin like everyone else, and have to pay the same fees to miners like everyone else.

And what would be the reason for that ?
Can't you just stop talking instead ?

Because you are spreading FUD and making ridiculous claims.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Today I have merged back the commit from trunk which fixes an unfairly high fees that have to be paid to the miners sometimes due to a bug re-introduced in 0.3.24.

For details see the discussion here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45259.0

The patch is/will be already present in 0.4x version of official client, but i have also merged it back into 0.3.21, 0.3.22, 0.3.23 and 0.3.24 versions - for people who like to use older and more tested apps.

https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/commits/nftf-0.3.21
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/commits/nftf-0.3.22
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/commits/nftf-0.3.23 (that version already contained the patch)
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/commits/nftf-0.3.24

If you have used trunk version, it already contained the patch, merged back from official client.
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/

Enjoy your no-unnecessary-fee transactions !
As always, wait for at least 7 confirmations before re-sending money so you lower the risk of transaction not being accepted by the network.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

2011-09-24 Update:

NFTF - version 0.4.0 released.

Also:
- Removed all the messy git tags merged previously from the mailine client
- Created new, clean tag for NFTF-0.4.0
- Minor cosmetic changes in comments

So from now on, code will be organized in tags, not versions - as it should be from the beginning.

0.4.0 code is avaiable in the tag:
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/tree/nftf-v0.4.0/

And trunk code is avaiable from the trunk, as always. I usually only update it on major version changes or important features/bugfixes, so don't expect me to keep up with mainstream client developers all the time.

Trunk: https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/tree/

Also, i have performed few tests, sending back and forth small amounts of BTC (0.01) having only 2 confirmations, and it seems that my fork is stable enough for the payments to get confirmed easily (up to 2 hours) without using any fees.