Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 10:57:59 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin client rounding up all TX fees to .01!  (Read 4692 times)
AngelusWebDesign (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 03:22:48 PM
 #1

I have my transaction (TX) fee set to 0.0005 under "Options".

I just sent some Bitcoins, and noticed that my TX fee was rounded up to .01 BTC!

That's a lot for a lousy 1 BTC transaction. Might as well use Paypal! I thought Bitcoin was about low fees?

Anyhow, is this a bug in the latest client (0.3.24) or is this an actual policy change?

I want a new client before I do any more Bitcoin transactions. 14 cents for a $14 transaction is too high, considering the youth and risk of Bitcoin. It's too close to Paypal's level of fees.
"With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1710845879
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710845879

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710845879
Reply with quote  #2

1710845879
Report to moderator
1710845879
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710845879

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710845879
Reply with quote  #2

1710845879
Report to moderator
gentakin
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 03:30:05 PM
 #2

maybe the change was <0.01BTC and this caused the anti-spam-fee of 0.01BTC?

Like this:

You want to send 0.99BTC.
Your client picks an old input of 1.0BTC.
Your client wants to add 0.0005BTC fees.

Now, there's one output of 0.99 and one of 0.0095 (the change). The remaining 0.0005 are meant to be the fee.
Now the client realizes that one output is below 0.01BTC and the anti-spam-fee of 0.01BTC kicks in, so you get no change at all.

This is just a guess, I have no clue if bitcoin tries to avoid having <0.01BTC for change.

Could you send the blockexplorer link?

1HNjbHnpu7S3UUNMF6J9yWTD597LgtUCxb
AngelusWebDesign (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 03:39:39 PM
 #3

This actually happened to me twice so far.

I seriously doubt it's just me -- but it only started happening with the latest client.

Anyone out there could test it -- just set your transaction fee to .0005 and see what happens.
You'll be charged .01, even though the client never warns you that it's being increased.

Completely unacceptable. If Bitcoin is still this mickey-mouse (or "alpha", pick your adjective) we'll never see more than a few 10,000's of people adopt it -- ever.
fabianhjr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


Do The Evolution


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 03:48:10 PM
 #4

What software version do you have?

elggawf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 04:16:44 PM
 #5

You're doing it wrong:

Code:
Debit: -0.01
Transaction fee: -0.001
Net amount: -0.011

0.3.24 alpha

^_^
arnoldrimmer
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 358
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 04:21:16 PM
 #6

same here using 0.3.24beta just cleans everthing out behind 0.01 happend twice for me

► HackenAI ◄  ♦ HackenAI - Personal Cybersecurity Application ♦  ► HackenAI ◄
───●❀●───●❀●───●❀●───●❀●───●❀●─[   Bounty Detective   ]─●❀●───●❀●───●❀●───●❀●───●❀●───
Facebook◂ | ▸Twitter◂ | ▸Medium◂ | ▸Reddit◂ | ▸Telegram◂ | ▸Whitepaper
DonnyCMU
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 143
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 04:29:49 PM
 #7

Really? Thx god I didn't upgrade!
I often make small transactions of 0.5 btc or less, many to those bitcoin gamblings.

I understand Bitcoin is not designed for micro payments, but at current price, 1-2 usd (0.1 btc) isn't micro at all; it's just small transactions.
It would be horrendous to be charge 2-10% fee for these transactions.
AngelusWebDesign (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 04:44:45 PM
 #8

Ok, how do we get this fixed?  Are they aware of this problem, and working on a fix?

Who do I need to report this to?
jgarzik
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1091


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 04:52:34 PM
 #9

Post the blockexplorer link, as another poster requested.

Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
AngelusWebDesign (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 05:09:22 PM
 #10

How do I do that?
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 564


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 08:41:44 PM
 #11

Now, there's one output of 0.99 and one of 0.0095 (the change). The remaining 0.0005 are meant to be the fee.
Now the client realizes that one output is below 0.01BTC and the anti-spam-fee of 0.01BTC kicks in, so you get no change at all.

This is just a guess, I have no clue if bitcoin tries to avoid having <0.01BTC for change.
I seem to vaguely remember one of the developers saying in IRC a while ago that Bitcoin deliberately gets rid of any change left over from a bitcoin transaction that's less than 0.01 BTC by giving it away as a fee. Something about bitdust removal...

Edit: Yep, bingo!

Code:
               // Fill a vout back to self with any change
                int64 nChange = nValueIn - nTotalValue;
                if (nChange >= CENT)
                {
                    [ snipped code here that actually give you change back if it exceeds 0.01 BTC ]

Edit 2: The anti-spam fee was dropped to 0.0005 as part of the fee reductions from what I can tell, so that couldn't cause it.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
AngelusWebDesign (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 09:28:41 PM
 #12

What the heck?   I want my bitdust.

So if my balance is 1.85, I should send "1.85" in, so it can't steal any of it?

So you're saying that it might give me the prompt "You must pay .0005" and it will take that much out, or will it still round it up to .01 BTC?

This needs to be fixed. I don't want to pay 15 cents for a lousy 1 BTC transaction. Not worth it.

If I wanted to pay those kind of fees I'd stick with Paypal. And I don't want to hear about "support the network" blahblahblah... in the here and now, that isn't necessary.

If, tomorrow, everyone started using a patched client that allowed 0 fees, NOTHING WOULD CHANGE AT ALL in the Bitcoin world, except a few pool operators would have a bit less side income. Miners mine today for BTC, not for transaction fees. Maybe this will change in the future. But we can worry about that in the future.

I wish I could make a 5 BTC bet -- because I'm that confident about it. Total Network Hashrate wouldn't change AT ALL (except normal variance) if all transaction fees disappeared tomorrow.

So crap like this basically takes money from casual BTC users and gives it to a handful of people who operate pools. Nice.
CurbsideProphet
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 09:35:45 PM
 #13

If you set your transaction fee to zero, then send the transaction, it should prompt you that you need to add on a fee of 0.0005.  Clicking the button to agree to pay the fee should then properly debit the correct fee amount.  It did for me anyway.

1ProphetnvP8ju2SxxRvVvyzCtTXDgLPJV
gentakin
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 09:38:27 PM
 #14

Edit 2: The anti-spam fee was dropped to 0.0005 as part of the fee reductions from what I can tell, so that couldn't cause it.

Thanks for the clarification. The same happened to me in an earlier bitcoin version and I (mistakenly) thought it was the anti-spam fees.
Angelus, search for the address you sent those bitcoins to on blockexplorer. Then look for your transaction on the result page. If it has only 1 output, it's probably because of the code makomk posted.

I think that code is useless and doesn't scale well. I certainly have no problems with "bit dust" sitting in my wallet, and in the future, when 1BTC=100000000000000USD, that dust might buy me a nice car and more. Grin

@CurbsideProphet: No, it happened to me before - it asked for a 0.0005 fee, but then took more (like 0.007 if I remember correctly - all my change).

1HNjbHnpu7S3UUNMF6J9yWTD597LgtUCxb
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 564


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 10:52:49 PM
 #15

So you're saying that it might give me the prompt "You must pay .0005" and it will take that much out, or will it still round it up to .01 BTC?
It might just pay the .0005, it might pay .01 BTC, or it might pay some amount in-between - depends on the value of the coins that the client selects to make the payment with. There's no way of predicting this in advance. If I'm reading the anti-dust code correctly it could even charge a sub-0.01 BTC "fee" without prompting at all, though that's probably fairly unlikely to happen in practice.

If, tomorrow, everyone started using a patched client that allowed 0 fees, NOTHING WOULD CHANGE AT ALL in the Bitcoin world, except a few pool operators would have a bit less side income. Miners mine today for BTC, not for transaction fees. Maybe this will change in the future. But we can worry about that in the future.
The fees aren't meant to be there to support the miners at the moment, they're there because without them it's too easy for people to spam the blockchain with bogus transactions that send money to themselves again and again. This apparently did happen for a while.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
Sukrim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 1006


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 11:21:45 PM
 #16

I always pay negative fees, so I get money back when spending it! Cool

https://www.coinlend.org <-- automated lending at various exchanges.
https://www.bitfinex.com <-- Trade BTC for other currencies and vice versa.
gusti
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1099
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 19, 2011, 11:36:01 PM
 #17

What the heck?   I want my bitdust.

So if my balance is 1.85, I should send "1.85" in, so it can't steal any of it?

So you're saying that it might give me the prompt "You must pay .0005" and it will take that much out, or will it still round it up to .01 BTC?

This needs to be fixed. I don't want to pay 15 cents for a lousy 1 BTC transaction. Not worth it.

If I wanted to pay those kind of fees I'd stick with Paypal. And I don't want to hear about "support the network" blahblahblah... in the here and now, that isn't necessary.

If, tomorrow, everyone started using a patched client that allowed 0 fees, NOTHING WOULD CHANGE AT ALL in the Bitcoin world, except a few pool operators would have a bit less side income. Miners mine today for BTC, not for transaction fees. Maybe this will change in the future. But we can worry about that in the future.

I wish I could make a 5 BTC bet -- because I'm that confident about it. Total Network Hashrate wouldn't change AT ALL (except normal variance) if all transaction fees disappeared tomorrow.

So crap like this basically takes money from casual BTC users and gives it to a handful of people who operate pools. Nice.



you are so boring, dude
please go with paypal

If you don't own the private keys, you don't own the coins.
error
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500



View Profile
July 20, 2011, 12:03:38 AM
 #18

What the heck?   I want my bitdust.

So if my balance is 1.85, I should send "1.85" in, so it can't steal any of it?

So you're saying that it might give me the prompt "You must pay .0005" and it will take that much out, or will it still round it up to .01 BTC?

This needs to be fixed. I don't want to pay 15 cents for a lousy 1 BTC transaction. Not worth it.

If I wanted to pay those kind of fees I'd stick with Paypal. And I don't want to hear about "support the network" blahblahblah... in the here and now, that isn't necessary.

If, tomorrow, everyone started using a patched client that allowed 0 fees, NOTHING WOULD CHANGE AT ALL in the Bitcoin world, except a few pool operators would have a bit less side income. Miners mine today for BTC, not for transaction fees. Maybe this will change in the future. But we can worry about that in the future.

I wish I could make a 5 BTC bet -- because I'm that confident about it. Total Network Hashrate wouldn't change AT ALL (except normal variance) if all transaction fees disappeared tomorrow.

So crap like this basically takes money from casual BTC users and gives it to a handful of people who operate pools. Nice.

Go to blockexplorer.com and look up your transaction. Post a link to it here. Until then there is no way of determining what is going on, and no point to your message.

3KzNGwzRZ6SimWuFAgh4TnXzHpruHMZmV8
duncant
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 53
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 20, 2011, 12:55:56 AM
 #19

I am experiencing this phenomenon too. Just to test, I sent myself a couple transactions with the TXfee set to 0.0005 BTC in the 0.3.24 client.

TXIDs:
dab79afb3a2254425dd952a8e96d66231ca73b3e5976f6dfa694733b22483d4b
a5a858ffefbf966359b14f2c86f38f9aaabc1d36a70029c2bae530cb7256cabf

This is disturbing to say the least. I think I'll be downgrading my client to the 0.3.23 version.
error
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500



View Profile
July 20, 2011, 01:33:27 AM
 #20

I am experiencing this phenomenon too. Just to test, I sent myself a couple transactions with the TXfee set to 0.0005 BTC in the 0.3.24 client.

TXIDs:
dab79afb3a2254425dd952a8e96d66231ca73b3e5976f6dfa694733b22483d4b
a5a858ffefbf966359b14f2c86f38f9aaabc1d36a70029c2bae530cb7256cabf

This is disturbing to say the least. I think I'll be downgrading my client to the 0.3.23 version.

Looks like you somehow spent a coin with 0 confirmations, which is why you got hit with a fee. Though why it was 0.0055 instead of 0.0005 is a problem.

The previous transaction is kind of odd though; I don't think that it should have had a fee at all.

Have you tried setting the transaction fee to 0?

3KzNGwzRZ6SimWuFAgh4TnXzHpruHMZmV8
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 564


View Profile
July 22, 2011, 11:43:16 PM
 #21

Looks like you somehow spent a coin with 0 confirmations, which is why you got hit with a fee. Though why it was 0.0055 instead of 0.0005 is a problem.

The previous transaction is kind of odd though; I don't think that it should have had a fee at all.

Have you tried setting the transaction fee to 0?
Won't help. As I said earlier, if the change from a Bitcoin transaction would've been less than 0.01 BTC, it's automatically and silently spent as a fee rather than returned in order to reduce the accumulation of "bit dust". The first transaction presumably incurred a 0.0005 fee due the zero-confirmation 0.01 BTC input, but the client then chose to pay the total amount with a 0.01 BTC input and a 0.0055 input, leaving 0.0050 BTC of change which was too small to return and got thrown away as a fee. The second had 0.0115 BTC in and 0.01 BTC out, leaving 0.0015 BTC of change which is again too small and gets converted to a fee.

There's no way to disable this.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
Man From The Future
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 371
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 23, 2011, 07:47:15 AM
 #22

Looks like you somehow spent a coin with 0 confirmations, which is why you got hit with a fee. Though why it was 0.0055 instead of 0.0005 is a problem.

The previous transaction is kind of odd though; I don't think that it should have had a fee at all.

Have you tried setting the transaction fee to 0?
Won't help. As I said earlier, if the change from a Bitcoin transaction would've been less than 0.01 BTC, it's automatically and silently spent as a fee rather than returned in order to reduce the accumulation of "bit dust". The first transaction presumably incurred a 0.0005 fee due the zero-confirmation 0.01 BTC input, but the client then chose to pay the total amount with a 0.01 BTC input and a 0.0055 input, leaving 0.0050 BTC of change which was too small to return and got thrown away as a fee. The second had 0.0115 BTC in and 0.01 BTC out, leaving 0.0015 BTC of change which is again too small and gets converted to a fee.

There's no way to disable this.

This should be changed Sad

THE ONE STOP SOLUTION FOR THE CRYPTO WORLD
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
Facebook   /  Twitter   /  Reddit   /  Medium   /  Youtube   /
      ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄█████████████████▄
  █████▀▀  ███  ▀▀█████
 ████     █████     ████
████     ███████
███▀    ████ ████
███▄   ████   ████
████  ████▄▄▄▄▄████  ████
 ███████████████████████
  █████▄▄       ▄▄█████
   ▀█████████████████▀
      ▀▀█████████▀▀

▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄
▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄
▄█▀                       ▀█▄
▄▄▄▄ ▄█                           █▄ ▄▄▄▄
█   ███▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███   █
▀▀█▀                                 ▀█▀▀
▄▀                                     ▀▄
▄▄▀▄▄▄▄                                 ▄▄▄▄▀▄▄
█       ▀▀▄                           ▄▀▀       █
█          █                         █          █
█▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀█
▒▀▄       ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██       ▄▀▒
▒█▀▀▀▀▄▄  █              ▀              █  ▄▄▀▀▀▀█▒
▒█      █ ▀▄                           ▄▀ █      █▒
▒▀▄▀▄▄▄▄▀  █▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀█  ▀▄▄▄▄▀▄▀▒
▒▒▒▀▄▄▄▄▄ █                             █ ▄▄▄▄▄▀▒▒▒
 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008


If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 11:38:58 AM
 #23

It should definitely be changed


ItsASpork
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 82
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 11:58:40 AM
 #24

Who's genius idea was this? I hate to be one of those guys, but how can we expect the masses to adopt Bitcoin when the client can't even charge a reliable fee?

Feeling Generous? 16Zo6werKP4akoTfHc9P5XXBGS2jFqeuSt
Support the Bitcoin Faucet
jackjack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1233


May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 12:10:25 PM
 #25

I experienced that in namecoin yesterday but didn't ask yet to the dev
Thanks OP for pointing it out

And nothing about that written in the FAQ or settings dialog...

Own address: 19QkqAza7BHFTuoz9N8UQkryP4E9jHo4N3 - Pywallet support: 1AQDfx22pKGgXnUZFL1e4UKos3QqvRzNh5 - Bitcointalk++ script support: 1Pxeccscj1ygseTdSV1qUqQCanp2B2NMM2
Pywallet: instructions. Encrypted wallet support, export/import keys/addresses, backup wallets, export/import CSV data from/into wallet, merge wallets, delete/import addresses and transactions, recover altcoins sent to bitcoin addresses, sign/verify messages and files with Bitcoin addresses, recover deleted wallets, etc.
BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1009


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2011, 12:35:19 PM
 #26

+1 for changing this.

As the value of BitCoins goes up this idea of "bitdust" is just robbery. The transaction has to balance it's own books to the parties involved regardless of current value. The fact they arbitrarily decide to do this gives me less confidence in BitCoins and the people making these decisions.

Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008


If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 12:49:35 PM
 #27

Maybe if we put up a 2000 or 3000 btc bounty someone will fix this...

jackjack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1233


May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 12:52:51 PM
 #28

I'm currently trying to fix that in my fork

Own address: 19QkqAza7BHFTuoz9N8UQkryP4E9jHo4N3 - Pywallet support: 1AQDfx22pKGgXnUZFL1e4UKos3QqvRzNh5 - Bitcointalk++ script support: 1Pxeccscj1ygseTdSV1qUqQCanp2B2NMM2
Pywallet: instructions. Encrypted wallet support, export/import keys/addresses, backup wallets, export/import CSV data from/into wallet, merge wallets, delete/import addresses and transactions, recover altcoins sent to bitcoin addresses, sign/verify messages and files with Bitcoin addresses, recover deleted wallets, etc.
cepler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 03:24:41 PM
 #29

+1 for changing this.

As the value of BitCoins goes up this idea of "bitdust" is just robbery. The transaction has to balance it's own books to the parties involved regardless of current value. The fact they arbitrarily decide to do this gives me less confidence in BitCoins and the people making these decisions.

+5000

If I tried to explain how all the fees worked in this thing to a newcomer they would look at me and yell scam!

The client should clearly present exactly all fees with details as to why they are being charged.  Not doing this is simply unacceptable!
jackjack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1233


May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 05:34:38 PM
 #30

On my fork: with 0.5586 BTC on my account, i sent 0.55, the client asked 0.001 for fees, and 0.551 were debited, leaving 0.0076 BTC
Looks like I kept my bitdust (well, 'broadcasted through 16 nodes' though)

Own address: 19QkqAza7BHFTuoz9N8UQkryP4E9jHo4N3 - Pywallet support: 1AQDfx22pKGgXnUZFL1e4UKos3QqvRzNh5 - Bitcointalk++ script support: 1Pxeccscj1ygseTdSV1qUqQCanp2B2NMM2
Pywallet: instructions. Encrypted wallet support, export/import keys/addresses, backup wallets, export/import CSV data from/into wallet, merge wallets, delete/import addresses and transactions, recover altcoins sent to bitcoin addresses, sign/verify messages and files with Bitcoin addresses, recover deleted wallets, etc.
wallet.dat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 253
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 05:43:43 PM
 #31

Crap, I just checked and I had inadvertently set my transaction fee to .10 lol

"MOOOOOOOM! THE MEATLOAF!!! F**K!"
error
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500



View Profile
July 23, 2011, 06:24:24 PM
 #32

I'm currently trying to fix that in my fork

Send a pull request, please.

3KzNGwzRZ6SimWuFAgh4TnXzHpruHMZmV8
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 8343



View Profile WWW
July 24, 2011, 04:44:02 AM
 #33

I'm currently trying to fix that in my fork

Send a pull request, please.

Or don't.  I don't think this behavior should change, though perhaps the cutoff point should be reduced to the smallest fee.

Every single full node in the network must track and check all open outputs for all time.  The network should resist the accumulation of tiny outputs because allowing them increases the burden on the network substantially.

At some point it may become necessary to inhibit txn with very small outputs, in order to keep things expensive for the people trying to store childporn in the blockchain... so best to not increase the expectations now.

 
BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1009


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2011, 05:36:49 AM
 #34

Or don't.  I don't think this behavior should change, though perhaps the cutoff point should be reduced to the smallest fee.

Every single full node in the network must track and check all open outputs for all time.  The network should resist the accumulation of tiny outputs because allowing them increases the burden on the network substantially.

At some point it may become necessary to inhibit txn with very small outputs, in order to keep things expensive for the people trying to store childporn in the blockchain... so best to not increase the expectations now.

 
Seems to me the devs are smart enough to figure out a way that doesn't involve secretly stealing users change, no matter how small.

Couldn't they use some client setting for a "change address" to accumulate change into? Or something similar, as I'm not sure of the internal client mechanics. Or perhaps every X number of transactions the client would have to create a "payment to yourself" to combine bitdust.

I just think that if BitCoin wants wide acceptance these tricky little behaviors will have to be more transparent and simpler to understand. Disappearing fractions of coins will create a shitstorm of bad press, and when proponents commonly talk of 8 digit divisibility and free transactions it's very misleading when amounts under 2 digits can "randomly" disappear (which is how this looks to typical users).

gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 8343



View Profile WWW
July 24, 2011, 06:57:26 AM
 #35

Seems to me the devs are smart enough to figure out a way that doesn't involve secretly stealing users change, no matter how small.

Couldn't they use some client setting for a "change address" to accumulate change into? Or something similar, as I'm not sure of the internal client mechanics. Or perhaps every X number of transactions the client would have to create a "payment to yourself" to combine bitdust.

I just think that if BitCoin wants wide acceptance these tricky little behaviors will have to be more transparent and simpler to understand. Disappearing fractions of coins will create a shitstorm of bad press, and when proponents commonly talk of 8 digit divisibility and free transactions it's very misleading when amounts under 2 digits can "randomly" disappear (which is how this looks to typical users).

A "change address" would do nothing useful except compromise privacy— bitcoin tracks transactions not balances.

You're seriously overblowing "a shitstorm of bad press". Did you know that some large US chains systematically incorrectly round sales tax? E.g. they always round up, and due to some strange coincidence their prices are such that they almost always overcharge the customer by .9 cents?  Yet it's never made the news.

In any case, one way of dealing with this would be for the coin selection logic to add more input to prevent the change from being smaller than 0.01, sort of like your "payment to yourself" but happening at the time of the transaction to prevent the dust from being created in the first place. Of course, this would require you to have extra inputs in your wallet to begin with, and I'd be willing to be that anyone noticing bitdust lost is running an empty wallet.

E.g.

(0) use the fewest inputs to sum to the output value (plus any desired or required tx fee) exactly
if that fails
(1) use the smallest inputs that sum to at least output+fees+0.01
if that fails
(2) use the smallest inputs that sum to outputs+fees and give
the dust up as additional fees

One of the crappy things about this however, is that the dust is still bad for your privacy— it tags which side of the txn was the change quite distinctly. E.g. if you have input 3.0123456, and you redeem it into {1.0, 2.0123456} then I know with pretty high confidence that you just spent 1 BTC and that the address that 2.0123456 went to was also yours.  This is a reason that it's good to avoid getting dusty inputs in your wallet in the first place.  It's like a marked bill.
Miner-TE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 499
Merit: 500



View Profile
July 24, 2011, 07:21:08 AM
 #36

I was showing a friend how to use the client and sent myself 1.35839215, Only to get back 1.35 and pay 0.00839215 in fees.  Not cool.

Version 0.3.34-beta

http://blockexplorer.com/tx/8be5e605cfc3e53f3f2d47dbfe78aaec5f1722049aede8e737e4c6b04aaddb83

BTC - 1PeMMYGn7xbZjUYeaWe9ct1VV6szLS1vkD - LTC - LbtcJRJJQQBjZuHr6Wm7vtB9RnnWtRNYpq
BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1009


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2011, 01:13:16 PM
Last edit: July 24, 2011, 01:25:48 PM by BkkCoins
 #37

I don't understand how the devs can't see that executing a transaction without telling the user the real actual cost of the fees is not a serious issue.

If BitCoin becomes much more widely used then I could see some enterprising lawyer filing a class action suit against the developers. How many of them are miners or have miner acquaintances that materially gain from bitdust? Does the client ever warn users that random small amounts will be stolen from their transactions?

Seriously, a national news story on this would likely end any future of BitCoins in many peoples eyes. I don't think that's much of an exaggeration. It may not be totally rational due to the small values involved but I just don't think most people would be happy with it nonetheless.

It's devious to claim 8 digit divisibility and people expect that accuracy and then trim off anything less than .01.

.01 is about $0.14, which is about half of a minimal Paypal fee - and this may just be randomly taken as bitdust...?

(someone should write a util that scans the block chain and sees how much bitdust has been swept into fees in total)

Pieter Wuille
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1072
Merit: 1170


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2011, 02:46:47 PM
 #38

I believed the bug reported here was already fixed, but this thread made me suspicious.

It seems it was indeed fixed here, but lost in a code reorganization somewhat later (here).

My apologies to those who have lost coins - the issue will be fixed in the next release.

I do Bitcoin stuff.
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 8343



View Profile WWW
July 24, 2011, 04:07:55 PM
 #39

It's devious to claim 8 digit divisibility and people expect that accuracy and then trim off anything less than .01.

You're coming off as hysterical— and also factually inaccurate. The behavior hasn't be to "trim off anything less than .01", it's to not take change when the change was _entirely_ less than 0.01.

Rather than demonstrating to others the urgency of your point, as you no doubt intend, it may have the opposite effect.

Rest assured that anyone worth convincing already takes things seriously in general, adding a bunch of dire warnings is not helpful for your cause.


Pages: 1 2 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!