|
The00Dustin
|
 |
March 22, 2012, 11:08:24 PM |
|
I just spent coins from a generate and was charged a fee. The generate was for .6793514 and since 120 confirmations were required before they could be spent, and since I was trying ot send exactly .6793514, I expected to be able to send the transaction for free. Instead, a fee of .0005 was required and I had to spend .6788514 instead to afford the fee. I know that ultimately fees will be necessary to support mining, but I believe right now fees are only required for transactions that fall outside of a certain scope. My expectation did involve some assumption, but was based on this (from FAQ): Why is there a minimum payout?
This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees. Just out of curiosity, was the minimum payout's intent to be able to spend without a fee (in which case maybe it is currently too low, whether it was when implemented or not) or just to minimize fees (100 .00678851 inputs would have presumably required a larger fee)? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
Red Emerald
|
|
March 22, 2012, 11:26:43 PM
Last edit: March 22, 2012, 11:39:46 PM by Red Emerald |
|
I just spent coins from a generate and was charged a fee. The generate was for .6793514 and since 120 confirmations were required before they could be spent, and since I was trying ot send exactly .6793514, I expected to be able to send the transaction for free. Instead, a fee of .0005 was required and I had to spend .6788514 instead to afford the fee. I know that ultimately fees will be necessary to support mining, but I believe right now fees are only required for transactions that fall outside of a certain scope. My expectation did involve some assumption, but was based on this (from FAQ): Why is there a minimum payout?
This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees. Just out of curiosity, was the minimum payout's intent to be able to spend without a fee (in which case maybe it is currently too low, whether it was when implemented or not) or just to minimize fees (100 .00678851 inputs would have presumably required a larger fee)? IIRC once the coins are 120 generations in, they count as new coins. Since they are new coins, they don't get to be spent for free. I think you could have waited for the coins to mature more and saved yourself about 2 cents. priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes
No clue what your size_in_bytes is or how to tell though. |
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
March 22, 2012, 11:32:59 PM |
|
I just spent coins from a generate and was charged a fee. The generate was for .6793514 and since 120 confirmations were required before they could be spent, and since I was trying ot send exactly .6793514, I expected to be able to send the transaction for free. Instead, a fee of .0005 was required and I had to spend .6788514 instead to afford the fee. I know that ultimately fees will be necessary to support mining, but I believe right now fees are only required for transactions that fall outside of a certain scope. My expectation did involve some assumption, but was based on this (from FAQ): Why is there a minimum payout?
This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees. Just out of curiosity, was the minimum payout's intent to be able to spend without a fee (in which case maybe it is currently too low, whether it was when implemented or not) or just to minimize fees (100 .00678851 inputs would have presumably required a larger fee)? The intent is to avoid 1000x .001 BTC inputs for a 1 BTC payment. Odd that you were charged a fee like that; I wonder why. |
|
|
|
|
The00Dustin
|
|
March 22, 2012, 11:40:44 PM |
|
Odd that you were charged a fee like that; I wonder why. I think Red Emerald is right, it probably hadn't even been 126 confirmations. Like I said, I assumed that the 120 required before they could be spent made them old enough. It's also possible that the minimum BTC amount to not require a fee is higher, but I think that depends on age, seems like I saw the formula about what causes a fee to be required once, just kinda forgot about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Red Emerald
|
|
March 22, 2012, 11:42:42 PM |
|
Odd that you were charged a fee like that; I wonder why. I think Red Emerald is right, it probably hadn't even been 126 confirmations. Like I said, I assumed that the 120 required before they could be spent made them old enough. It's also possible that the minimum BTC amount to not require a fee is higher, but I think that depends on age, seems like I saw the formula about what causes a fee to be required once, just kinda forgot about it. |
|
|
|
|
The00Dustin
|
|
March 22, 2012, 11:48:31 PM |
|
priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes Transactions need to have a priority above 57,600,000 to avoid the enforced limit (as of client version 0.3.21). That's exactly what I saw (and probably exactly where I saw it). ETA: (67935140 * 126) / 225 = 38,043,678.4 38,043,678.4 < 57,600,000, so I don't even know if the 120 generate confirmations counted in the formula or not. |
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
March 26, 2012, 03:57:35 AM |
|
FWIW, BitVPS.com is offering Eligius miners 20% off with coupon code 'ELIGIUS'
|
|
|
|
|
JayCoin
|
|
March 27, 2012, 04:20:32 AM |
|
How do you pay for this if you have no fees? You don't include transactions in your blocks so you don't get any transactions fees. Even if you did, they wouldn't pay for the server you must need. What is your motivation? World Peace?  |
Hello There!
|
|
|
|
Red Emerald
|
|
March 27, 2012, 04:32:05 AM |
|
How do you pay for this if you have no fees? You don't include transactions in your blocks so you don't get any transactions fees. Even if you did, they wouldn't pay for the server you must need. What is your motivation? World Peace? Where did you read he doesn't include transactions? Also, there is still a 50BTC block subsidy. Luke-jr does have lower variance by having people mine with him, but theres plenty of pools that are run for the benefit of Bitcoin over profit. |
|
|
|
|
JayCoin
|
|
March 27, 2012, 04:44:43 AM |
|
How do you pay for this if you have no fees? You don't include transactions in your blocks so you don't get any transactions fees. Even if you did, they wouldn't pay for the server you must need. What is your motivation? World Peace? Where did you read he doesn't include transactions? Also, there is still a 50BTC block subsidy. Luke-jr does have lower variance by having people mine with him, but theres plenty of pools that are run for the benefit of Bitcoin over profit. If you look at recent blocks found by Eligius http://blockchain.info/blocks/Eligius every block only contains the one generation transaction. |
Hello There!
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
March 27, 2012, 05:22:15 AM |
|
How do you pay for this if you have no fees? You don't include transactions in your blocks so you don't get any transactions fees. Even if you did, they wouldn't pay for the server you must need. What is your motivation? World Peace? Where did you read he doesn't include transactions? Also, there is still a 50BTC block subsidy. Luke-jr does have lower variance by having people mine with him, but theres plenty of pools that are run for the benefit of Bitcoin over profit. If you look at recent blocks found by Eligius http://blockchain.info/blocks/Eligius every block only contains the one generation transaction. Those aren't found by Eligius, it's just blockchain.info screwing up. See http://eligius.st/~artefact2/blocks/ for our real blocks. |
|
|
|
|
gr0bi42
|
|
April 05, 2012, 09:02:21 AM |
|
Hi Luke-Jr,
something is wrong with the stats at Eligius. Since Apr 2 it's completely wired.
Also the "submitted shares" count looks wrong. Does Eligius loose shares, or it's just a problem with the stats?
|
Donations are welcome: 1Btf3BqUegfe5iFdWsgfBf1Ew3YsAvsrLT
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
April 05, 2012, 06:43:23 PM |
|
Hi Luke-Jr,
something is wrong with the stats at Eligius. Since Apr 2 it's completely wired.
Also the "submitted shares" count looks wrong. Does Eligius loose shares, or it's just a problem with the stats?
Everything looks fine to me... |
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
April 06, 2012, 04:01:02 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
April 12, 2012, 02:43:20 PM |
|
Luke-jr, shouldn't the pool be in a negative buffer at the moment? Your stats page is showing a positive buffer. Come to think of it, it shows that you've never had a negative buffer. Bug?
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
April 12, 2012, 02:47:39 PM |
|
Luke-jr, shouldn't the pool be in a negative buffer at the moment? Your stats page is showing a positive buffer. Come to think of it, it shows that you've never had a negative buffer. Bug?
There is no such thing as a negative buffer. How do you have a negative balance? |
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
April 12, 2012, 02:52:00 PM |
|
Are we talking about the same thing? The SMPPS buffer? Which can be negative, and unless you're using a different definition of 'balance' is as likely to be negative as positive? How do you have a negative balance?
You should talk to my bank manager some day. He has much to say on the topic  |
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
April 12, 2012, 03:11:37 PM |
|
Are we talking about the same thing? The SMPPS buffer? Which can be negative, and unless you're using a different definition of 'balance' is as likely to be negative as positive? Yes, and as the creator of SMPPS, I know that the buffer in fact cannot be negative by definition... Either there are funds in it, or not. There can't be anti-funds in the pool's wallet any more than there can be anti-funds in your own. |
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
April 12, 2012, 08:02:50 PM |
|
If 1 bitcent and 1 anti-bitcent are destroyed in mutual annihilation how much energy is produced?
|
|
|
|
|
|
The00Dustin
|
|
April 12, 2012, 08:13:46 PM |
|
I'm surprised I'm the only one who wants to know, but what caused the charts to mess up yesterday? I happened to be looking when the lines were down really low (perhaps because all previous payout information was missing?), and the charts pretty much didn't show anything. Even now it's hard to see detail on them and presumably will be for the rest of a week until the messed up part scrolls off the left side. I'm just as curious regarding whether or not data is missing and/or accurate as I am regarding whether or not the charts will be fixed/normal before that part scrolls off.
ETA: I forgot the charts could be zoomed on. I'm now far more concerned about the integrity of the stats than the issue in the charts. Not that I'm even that concerned about the stats (mostly curious).
|
|
|
|
|
|
