Transaction fee too high?

[blatchcorn]

If we really want micropayments to work with bitcoin, the transaction fee has to be lower.

It would be amazing to see bitcoin being used to pay $0.01 to read an online article that used to behind a subscription-based paywall.

But even with bitcoin, the fees are too high.  Can they be reduced before mass adoption is achieved to avoid a chicken and egg problem?

[1715022194]

1715022194

[1715022194]

1715022194

[1715022194]

1715022194

[1715022194]

1715022194

[tinus42]

If we really want micropayments to work with bitcoin, the transaction fee has to be lower.

It would be amazing to see bitcoin being used to pay $0.01 to read an online article that used to behind a subscription-based paywall.

But even with bitcoin, the fees are too high.  Can they be reduced before mass adoption is achieved to avoid a chicken and egg problem?

0.0001 BTC is now nearly 5 cents. Not too high for most transactions.

You can send transactions without fees but it will take a while before they reach the receipient.

[madmat]

If we really want micropayments to work with bitcoin, the transaction fee has to be lower.

It would be amazing to see bitcoin being used to pay $0.01 to read an online article that used to behind a subscription-based paywall.

But even with bitcoin, the fees are too high.  Can they be reduced before mass adoption is achieved to avoid a chicken and egg problem?

Transaction Fees

This release drops the default fee required to relay transactions across the network and for miners to consider the transaction in their blocks to 0.01mBTC per kilobyte.

This is 0.5 cents !!!

[saif92]

I don't think fees is too much high its still very low from many other methods

[Technomage]

The current default fee in 0.9 is 0.00001 BTC which is half a cent. This changed recently. It's not a lot.

However there are still lots of miners that don't respect the new fee and transactions with that particular fee might be slower.

As for microtransactions, there are other ways to do that. It would be more economical to put lots of small transactions together and make 1 larger transaction out of them. So I'd prefer that sort of thing to be done differently.

[lira]

I don't think fees is too much high its still very low from many other methods

I think it is true. Other fees for electron money are XX?? higher than digital currency trading fees...

[dreamspark]

If we really want micropayments to work with bitcoin, the transaction fee has to be lower.

It would be amazing to see bitcoin being used to pay $0.01 to read an online article that used to behind a subscription-based paywall.

But even with bitcoin, the fees are too high.  Can they be reduced before mass adoption is achieved to avoid a chicken and egg problem?

You technically don't need to pay any fees...


Especially when the transaction size is small (in regards to kb size not amount of BTC)

I also think that it would help if you clarify what a micro payment is, for example paypal I think classes anything under $12 as a micropayment.

The problem doesnt really lie within the protocol the main issue is greedy miners.

Floating fees will also help to keep the transaction fees very low, what you refer to is only an issue if you want to send a cent but the vast majority of the transactions are way above this.

[franky1]

when it comes to media wanting to charge just a penny to read an article the problem is that regular readers whom may at first do free transactions due to low data, will find within a week all of those "change" addresses from previous article purchases are now causing their transactions to include more inputs. so yes an article can be free from fee's initially, but regular readers will find that the more often the spend the more it causes their next transaction to bloat. so please do not just say "its possible to send free tx's" without putting the issue into real life context first.

secondly these media companies that receive many micro transactions thn have the issue of transaction bloat due to trying to move all of the microtransactions.

which means that just buying an article costs the customer on purchase and costs the media company when they want to move their received funds.

this issue is not helping the fredom to move funds. it is incentivising people to hoard funds for many confirms to avoid virgin coin fee's. and avoid spending just to keep funds one one nice and neat pile. purely to avoid data bloat fee's

it is very apparent that Luke JR is greedy and implemented these non freedoms. as he also is trying to get people to use new addresses for every transaction. purely to create bloat.

what also adds to this greedy mindset, is the distancing away from mining is to verify/comfirm transactions in exchange for a bitcoin reward. into an area of knitpicking transactions and ignoring transactions purely to receive bitcoin fastest, not as a reward, but as compensation for wasted electric.

even the bitcoin wiki is admitting that instead of bitcoin being a free system of value exchange, it is a controlled system which is biased against certain transactions, in which the transactor has no freedom to just send a TX, they have to play to miners greedy and ego.

On the other hand, nobody mining new bitcoins necessarily needs to accept the transactions and include them in the new block being created.

the fundamental idea of bitcoins and the purpose of blocks is for transactions. and as such bitcoin mining pools should not knit pick transactions. and then blackmail people to pay the fee or have their TX's delayed or ignored.

[dreamspark]

[snip]

Without disputing any of your points as you make good ones, isnt this where off chain transactions can come into play for a regular reader ? 

Again though the issue is mainly miners in regards to the fee itself, I personally think that 25 bitcoins for creating a block is more than enough reward. Miners arent filing up there blocks as it is and so excluding transactions based on fee sent is silly until there really is a need to give priortiy to fee paying transactions due to ful blocks.

[Kazimir]

I typically use a 0.00001 BTC fee (one hundredth of a milliBit) for transactions, always works fine. That's about half a ¢ent. And even lower works fine as well. This is not an issue anymore since Bitcoin Core 0.9 (in which the default fee policy was adjusted).

[vnvizow]

Well in comparison to normal fiat currency transfers we have a pretty low transaction fee. And, you can set the amount yourself so who's complaining?

[saif92]

Well in comparison to normal fiat currency transfers we have a pretty low transaction fee. And, you can set the amount yourself so who's complaining?

OP was complaining but hope after reading all this now he satisfied about this

[gagalady]

Usually as lower transaction you make the bigger fee you get just like on paypal?

[saif92]

Usually as lower transaction you make the bigger fee you get just like on paypal?

Yes this happen to me in starting days I have many coins from faucets and they took too much fees from my wallet 

[Lauda]

I think that keeping the fee around 1 cent is okay. There is no need to go lower than that.

[Dfrost]

If I had some Bitcoins I might complain

[mitzie]

The current default fee in 0.9 is 0.00001 BTC which is half a cent. This changed recently. It's not a lot.

However there are still lots of miners that don't respect the new fee and transactions with that particular fee might be slower.

^^ that

[bryant.coleman]

I typically use a 0.00001 BTC fee (one hundredth of a milliBit) for transactions, always works fine. That's about half a ¢ent. And even lower works fine as well. This is not an issue anymore since Bitcoin Core 0.9 (in which the default fee policy was adjusted).

High-priority transactions in BTC-E charge a transaction fee of BTC0.0005 (Equivalent to $0.25). That is a bit high, I think. Especially when we have to withdraw small amounts like BTC0.01.

[iluvpie60]

What most people fail to take into account, is that right now they are saying they all agree in a transaction fee. Yes it may be .5 cents per transaction right now. But thinking of it in terms of supply/demand. IF everyone is saying the Bitcoin network will 100x or 1000x in volume that will certainly increase the transaction fees needed for miners to mine.

So if you want to just normalize it, lets say transaction fees a few years from now will be 50 cents to 5 bucks per transaction. Which is obviously assuming BTC stays the same price as it is about right now. But at a certain point your transaction fees ARE going to go up, and anything sent through "free" transactions will most likely never get through. Like I have been saying, in the end BTC functions just like a bank. People are creating ETFs for BTC, stock exchanges, insurance programs, "vaults" for storage, loan programs, and all of the SAME EXACT THINGS THAT BANKS/STOCK MARKETS DO.

In the white paper on BTC it is admitted that BTC protocol does require fees once their is no BTC available(assuming people still use it and there is large volume), so miners can be sustained and transactions verified. The only problem is that these fees are going to start going up and hitting a lot sooner than most expect. BTC is becoming banking(due to 3rd parties hi-jacking it). In the end there will be a few large oligarchies who run everything to do with BTC and someone will be able to push through any change they feel like. Just saying.

Quote me now for future reference.

[Nagle]

If we really want micropayments to work with bitcoin, the transaction fee has to be lower.

If we really want miners to make money with their mining rigs, the transaction fee has to be higher.