Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9

[PrintCoins]

Good for the miners. It looks like they are pushing for higher fees.

If you give them 50BTC for mining the block, you better give them something comparable to record those transactions.

A transaction doesn't have a TTL, so if you store up a few thousand transactions with really small fees, you might be able to make a little money off of applying them all to one block.

Or, if you want to be abusive, you could save up all the free transactions and just record them all in one block many years from now.

Empty blocks should not be accepted if there are a certain number (value?) of waiting transactions.

This is the best idea I heard up to now. At least would keep the network working.

Accepting empty blocks is not a valid way to handle the situation, and their is no profit in doing so. Ignoring transactions is a way to signal users that they have to pay up. It would be great if miners had a way to advertise the price they would have accepted in fees.

[check_status]

So the whole problem is the potential threat no tx blocks are/could cause for the bitcoin community.

I like the idea where the halving cuts into profits for no tx's miners.

The other potential issue is a botnet mining BTC, fck'm.

How to treat a botnet operator:
Meat hooks tied to horses and inserted in the botops rectum, then yell to the horses, "Gidyup...HAA!"

[molecular]

We better make bitcoin as solid as possible before we really depend on it. People like Luke-Jr and ArtForz attacking alt-chains is part of this hardening-process.

I'm interested in knowing the details of what happened with the attacking of alt-chains by Luke-jr and ArtForz, can you please point me to the right threads, if this is has been already discussed elsewhere?

I didn't dig very deep, but here are some pointers for you:

• description of artforz' attack on geistgeld https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43692.msg521772#msg521772 (I think he actually conducted it and I remember he said so somewhere (indirectly), but couldn't find it or any other mention of his conducting it). attack also mentioned here: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1055/what-is-the-zeitgeist-attack-does-it-affect-all-blockchain-technologies
  
• luke-jr attacked coiledcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56675.msg678006#msg678006
  

maybe this helps you to research it a little further if you like.

[rdponticelli]

A long term fix for the fees issue could be a protocol by which miners publish the service they can provide (estimated hashrate provided and corresponding time to process) and the minimal fee at which they are willing to take the job. So a gui user can select the most convenient offer for him when he sends the transaction. This way you can build a free market of transactions which will tend to autoregulate.

[DeepBit]

Yes, I published my fee policy recently :)

[Raoul Duke]

WTF... What does fee value have to do with someone mining blocks with no transactions besides the generation?

You're doing it wrong... The problem here is that the minted coins are above tx fee's tenfold(or should I say thousand fold?). To fix that we'll have to wait 40 years, not raise fees.

Get a grip, dudes... honestly!

[Littleshop]

Yes, I published my fee policy recently

I tried to find it (your website, your thread in pools) and could not.  Link please? 

I think this is a good thing, pools and miners publishing fee policies.  To actually put a price (hopefully low) on speed and blockchain storage price will give incentives to reduce blockchain bloat. 

[DeepBit]

Yes, I published my fee policy recently :)

I tried to find it (your website, your thread in pools) and could not.  Link please? 

I think this is a good thing, pools and miners publishing fee policies.  To actually put a price (hopefully low) on speed and blockchain storage price will give incentives to reduce blockchain bloat. 

https://deepbit.net/help/6#6

Usually my free zone is big enough for all pending free TXes to fit.

[rjk]

https://deepbit.net/help/6#6

Usually my free zone is big enough for all pending free TXes to fit.

Good, clear, sane and simple policy.

[Littleshop]

Yes, I published my fee policy recently

I tried to find it (your website, your thread in pools) and could not.  Link please? 

I think this is a good thing, pools and miners publishing fee policies.  To actually put a price (hopefully low) on speed and blockchain storage price will give incentives to reduce blockchain bloat. 

https://deepbit.net/help/6#6

Usually my free zone is big enough for all pending free TXes to fit.

Nice.  Seems reasonable. 

[kjj]

all the talks about pushing against this MM is just plain stupid. Stoppind 1tx blocks? Oh come on.
You guys are asking exactly what bitcoin is the opposite of: Central authority.

There is no proof of botnet, there is no proof of any ill doing what so ever. Every miner is free to choose to include TXs or not to. TX fees will adjust for that *EVENTUALLY*.
This could just be some HONEST miner who made a huge investment. This could be BFL testing all their singles, rigs etc. ie. for 800Ghash it takes "only" 1000 BFL Singles, or 40 mini rigs! *40*, not 40000, not 4000, but 40. The full blown rigs you would only need 16 of!
16*30k$ = 480k $. Hardly a sizeable investment in grand scale of things.

You really should have read the whole thread.  Or at least my posts in it, because everything you said is garbage and has been addressed repeatedly in the past.

[deepceleron]

In a typical 24h period, over 500,000 BTC is currently being transferred. 7200 BTC in 144 block generations are being produced. An average of 3500BTC is transferred per block. And about 25 BTC total per day are being paid in transaction fees. From this thread, we see we may want transactions fees sizeable enough to encourage inclusion of transactions in blocks, to make someone only interested in profit reconsider their wholesale omission of transactions.

A transaction fee is rarely required now, with so many old coins on the mature network. You can let 5 BTC sit in your wallet for a few days and you can spend them without fee. The current fees are only an anti-spam method, enforced only for small transfers of recently transferred coins, and will do little to eventually supplant mining rewards.

First, we may want to revert to the original Satoshi client's fees for low-priority transactions (and set a future block in the client where the old rules will again be enforced for relay and mining). It looks like the change to 0.0005 BTC per KB fees (v0.3.23) was unenlightened.  When the fee change was made, Bitcoin had a price trajectory that looked like this:



Secondly, I think it is time to also consider a percentage transaction fee.

A mandatory fee, to encourage inclusion of transactions in blocks beyond the anti-spam measures, is probably desireable, to the point where it becomes a not insignificant amount per block. 5 BTC per block or better may achieve this goal. To target 5BTC per block, by evaluating recent transaction history, this percentage would only be 0.14%. A percentage will not discourage microtransactions (developing nations, etc), and may be accompanied by the minimum fee, or only take effect for amounts above the minimum fee.

We know also that the mining reward will drop to 25 BTC by December. If we want to encourage blockchain difficulty to have the same resistance to attack it does now, knowing that Bitcoin isn't going to magically take over the world, we should strive to put transaction fees on a course to supplement and eventually replace coin generation, as we know will be required. Right now, if we consider 25BTC from fees to be the target for the next four years (replacing the 25BTC mining reward), we need to look at a rate similar to the percentage mentioned above.

Fees may reduce the amount of daily transfers, but this will also discourage the blockchain bloat we are currently experiencing (1GB to 1.5GB in four months). I've got a feeling much of that 500,000 BTC a day is moving around just because it is free...

[DeathAndTaxes]

% fees are not possible (or more correctly accurate) because the network has no idea what the amount of the transaction is.

I want to send you 5 BTC.  1% fee = 0.05 BTC.  No problem right?

Well my input is 32 BTC.  So is it 1% of 32 BTC? =0.32 BTC fee?
The outputs are 5 BTC and 27 BTC (change)?  Is it 1% of the larger output, 1% of the smallest output, or 1% of the average output, or 1% of sum of the outputs?

[PulsedMedia]

You really should have read the whole thread.  Or at least my posts in it, because everything you said is garbage and has been addressed repeatedly in the past.

I did. Every single post in this thread.
Maybe you should stop and try to comprehend what you are saying.

It's just moronic to ruin whole bitcoin network over a single miner not accepting TXs in their blocks. They are irrelevant. If they are attacking the network by doing this, you are just adding fuel to his attack on bitcoin.

If it were up to people who demand TX fees, demand rejection of no TX blocks etc. bitcoin would be dead, never gaining mass adoption.

You guys underestimate the free market, and the good will of people. People like gifting by nature, it usually benefits also the giver aswell. but in case of bitcoin TX fees you are also gaining something directly, a service. so most will include them (i've always included a TX fee myself).

You guys keep on insisting for stupid stuff to the detriment of bitcoin. (Those demanding action against MM by changing the protocol)

[deepceleron]

% fees are not possible (or more correctly accurate) because the network has no idea what the amount of the transaction is.

I want to send you 5 BTC.  1% fee = 0.05 BTC.  No problem right?

Well my input is 32 BTC.  So is it 1% of 32 BTC? =0.32 BTC fee?
The outputs are 5 BTC and 27 BTC (change)?  Is it 1% of the larger output, 1% of the smallest output, or 1% of the average output, or 1% of sum of the outputs?

That is a good point. If you have 1000 BTC in one address and you want to send 10 BTC to someone, you have to send the whole amount and get change back. However you are still sending a 1000 BTC input.

The Bitcoin client does not encourage accumulation of large balances in one address though. It automatically gives you a new address to use for incoming payments (or at least it did before the 0.5 changes). For the bit-rich, it may be advisable to examine where your money is in the face of such a change, and multi-send your mega-balance to 10 other addresses at one go, or create spending accounts and savings accounts.

The Bitcoin client could manage such multi-address balances even better for the minimization of fees; we already know it ignores age, and tries to assemble a transaction that results in the smallest change from the existing address balances in the wallet. Sending change to multiple addresses in a graduated fashion (ie, your change is 500,250,125,62 from the 1000BTC input above), informed by the amounts currently in the wallet addresses, may prepare your wallet for lower percentage fee sending in the future.

I don't see a better way though, a per-transaction fee would currently have to be excessively high for the desired significant contribution to block rewards, punishing small payments and small balance holders unfairly.

[molecular]

deepceleron, when you argue higher transaction fees, you sound like a greedy banker, making up all this crap to support your bonus payments.

just wait for the block reward to drop, fees will effectively double at that point.

[Jan]

In a typical 24h period, over 500,000 BTC is currently being transferred. 7200 BTC in 144 block generations are being produced. An average of 3500BTC is transferred per block. And about 25 BTC total per day are being paid in transaction fees. From this thread, we see we may want transactions fees sizeable enough to encourage inclusion of transactions in blocks, to make someone only interested in profit reconsider their wholesale omission of transactions.

A transaction fee is rarely required now, with so many old coins on the mature network. You can let 5 BTC sit in your wallet for a few days and you can spend them without fee. The current fees are only an anti-spam method, enforced only for small transfers of recently transferred coins, and will do little to eventually supplant mining rewards.

First, we may want to revert to the original Satoshi client's fees for low-priority transactions (and set a future block in the client where the old rules will again be enforced for relay and mining). It looks like the change to 0.0005 BTC per KB fees (v0.3.23) was unenlightened.  When the fee change was made, Bitcoin had a price trajectory that looked like this:



Secondly, I think it is time to also consider a percentage transaction fee.

A mandatory fee, to encourage inclusion of transactions in blocks beyond the anti-spam measures, is probably desireable, to the point where it becomes a not insignificant amount per block. 5 BTC per block or better may achieve this goal. To target 5BTC per block, by evaluating recent transaction history, this percentage would only be 0.14%. A percentage will not discourage microtransactions (developing nations, etc), and may be accompanied by the minimum fee, or only take effect for amounts above the minimum fee.

We know also that the mining reward will drop to 25 BTC by December. If we want to encourage blockchain difficulty to have the same resistance to attack it does now, knowing that Bitcoin isn't going to magically take over the world, we should strive to put transaction fees on a course to supplement and eventually replace coin generation, as we know will be required. Right now, if we consider 25BTC from fees to be the target for the next four years (replacing the 25BTC mining reward), we need to look at a rate similar to the percentage mentioned above.

Fees may reduce the amount of daily transfers, but this will also discourage the blockchain bloat we are currently experiencing (1GB to 1.5GB in four months). I've got a feeling much of that 500,000 BTC a day is moving around just because it is free...

+1
The trick is to find a suitable way of calculating the minimum fee. As noted elsewhere in this thread a percentage may not be the right answer.
I am the developer of the BCCAPI and BitcoinSpinner, and I want to guarantee that the transactions my users make go through the network and into a block.
So far I base fee calculations on the MIN_TX_FEE and MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE. This makes sure that Satoshi clients relay the transactions, but since the Satoshi client's fee policy does not match up with DeepBit's fee policy (or other miners for that matter) there may be situations where the transactions get propagated, but not included in a block.

As others have suggested, we may need to have an overlay-network where miners can advertise their fee policy. this way the average user won't have to google around to find a suitable fee for his transaction.

[muyuu]

% fees are not possible (or more correctly accurate) because the network has no idea what the amount of the transaction is.

I want to send you 5 BTC.  1% fee = 0.05 BTC.  No problem right?

Well my input is 32 BTC.  So is it 1% of 32 BTC? =0.32 BTC fee?
The outputs are 5 BTC and 27 BTC (change)?  Is it 1% of the larger output, 1% of the smallest output, or 1% of the average output, or 1% of sum of the outputs?

I don't think I understand what the problem is here.

Surely x% of every input? the fee would be paid by the entity making the transaction. x% of every input = x% of the sum of the inputs. In other words the outputs would have to add up to at most (100-x)% of the inputs.

[pieppiep]

% fees are not possible (or more correctly accurate) because the network has no idea what the amount of the transaction is.

I want to send you 5 BTC.  1% fee = 0.05 BTC.  No problem right?

Well my input is 32 BTC.  So is it 1% of 32 BTC? =0.32 BTC fee?
The outputs are 5 BTC and 27 BTC (change)?  Is it 1% of the larger output, 1% of the smallest output, or 1% of the average output, or 1% of sum of the outputs?

I don't think I understand what the problem is here.

Surely x% of every input? the fee would be paid by the entity making the transaction. x% of every input = x% of the sum of the inputs. In other words the outputs would have to add up to at most (100-x)% of the inputs.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think it is done this way :

If you mine a block you have 50 BTC on an address.
If you want to pay someone 1 BTC the 50 BTC is split up to 1 and 49 BTC and send to 2 different addresses. The 1 BTC to the person you send it to, and the 49 BTC to a new address owned by you.
The network doesn't know if you just sent 1 BTC to someone and kept 49 yourself or 49 BTC to someone and you kept 1 BTC.
It is done this way to stay more anonymous.

If the rule would be to pay 1% of all inputs, in this case 1% off 50 BTC, 0.5 BTC you would actually pay a little over 1% if you pay 49 BTC or you would pay 50% (very much) if you just pay the 1 BTC.

[DeathAndTaxes]

% fees are not possible (or more correctly accurate) because the network has no idea what the amount of the transaction is.

I want to send you 5 BTC.  1% fee = 0.05 BTC.  No problem right?

Well my input is 32 BTC.  So is it 1% of 32 BTC? =0.32 BTC fee?
The outputs are 5 BTC and 27 BTC (change)?  Is it 1% of the larger output, 1% of the smallest output, or 1% of the average output, or 1% of sum of the outputs?

I don't think I understand what the problem is here.

Surely x% of every input? the fee would be paid by the entity making the transaction. x% of every input = x% of the sum of the inputs. In other words the outputs would have to add up to at most (100-x)% of the inputs.

So I want to pay you 1 BTC.  The smallest input I have is 100 BTC.  On a 1 BTC payment if the fee was 1% I would pay 1 BTC fee (on 100 BTC input) for a 1 BTC transaction.

"cheaper than paypal, except when the fee is 100%"?