Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9

[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.

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%"?

If there is a 100BTC input and you are paying me 1BTC then there are 99BTC going somewhere else. you'd pay 1BTC for the total. In other words, the transaction is 100BTC not 1BTC, you are making several monetary exchanges within the same transaction.

I don't know what do you imply here. If you have 100 BTC in inputs, then the transaction is not 1BTC any way you put it.

[1713575817]

1713575817

[1713575817]

1713575817

[DeathAndTaxes]

The 99 BTC is going back to me.

You do understand that you can't spend part of an input right?

Scenario:
1) I have a wallet w/ a single address cointaing 100 BTC as a single prior output.
2) Fee is 1% of inputs
3) I owe you 1 BTC.
4) The only possible transaction is one where input = 100 BTC, outputs = 1 BTC (to you) & 99 BTC (returned to me)
5) The fee is 1% of 100 BTC = 1 BTC.

My effective fee is 100% of what I am trying to spend.

While your right it is technically a 100 BTC transaction no non-nerd is going to see it that way.  The avg user will see it as "I have 100 BTC I want to pay muyuu 1 BTC and it will cost be 2 BTC = 100% fee.  Fuck Bitcoin it is 50x more expensive than Paypal".

A realistic example:
http://blockchain.info/tx-index/3486210/f6f4e145a09ad579cacae3d889323054868a3acf10262ec4ae5c2132fd37365e

Unless the sender had the need to send exactly 1.775 to one person and 3.0169 to another person, at the same time, and just so happened to have an input worth exactly 4.7924 (not more, not less) the odds are the transaction ISN'T for 4.79 BTC despite it having a 4.79 BTC input.

Most likely (based on the amounts) the person is paying someone 1.775 BTC.  If the fee was 1% of the input his EFFECTIVE FEE would be 2.7%.  If his smallest input was 49 BTC it would be a 27% effective fee.  If his smallest input was 490 BTC it would be an 270% effective fee.  If his smallest input was 4,900 BTC it would be an 2,700% effective fee.  If his smallest input was 49,000 BTC it would be an 27,000% effective fee ....

[pieppiep]

If you buy a bread at the supermarket for $1 but you have a $100 bill and the tax on the bread is 6%, is it fair to pay $6 tax on the bread?
You probably say no, but thats different because you put $99 back in you wallet.
But to make bitcoin more anonymous you transfer the $100 from one wallet to 2 new wallets, one with $1 for the supermarket and one with $99 still for you.
So if you have 2 wallets, one with $100 bill and one empty and buy the bread and put the $99 change in you other new wallet, do you have to pay $6 taxes?

[muyuu]

The 99 BTC is going back to me.

You do understand that you can't spend part of an input right?

Scenario:
1) I have a wallet w/ a single address cointaing 100 BTC as a single prior output.
2) Fee is 1% of inputs
3) I owe you 1 BTC.
4) The only possible transaction is one where input = 100 BTC, outputs = 1 BTC (to you) & 99 BTC (returned to me)
5) The fee is 1% of 100 BTC = 1 BTC.

While your right it is a 100 BTC transaction no non-nerd is going to see it that way.  The avg user will see it as "I have 100 BTC I want to pay muyuu 1 BTC and it will cost be 2 BTC = 100% fee".

Obviously the part that goes back to the same address would be deducted. I think that's pretty trivial to implement... but maybe I'm missing something.

As a miner, you wouldn't include in your block transactions that don't pass that test: 1% of inputs (deducting the output to the same address). I was simply assuming that you are spending the whole input and the difference is just the fee, but you can correct that to reflect exactly what's going on low-level.

Does that sound right?

EDIT: to nitpick, it would have to add up all inputs and deduct all outputs to addresses in that input list.

[flower1024]

what about this variation:
 - 5% fee on smallest output
 - 0.001btc per outputif there are more than two output.

this would also give an incentive for small transactions (in bytes) which is good for the network

edit: replaces input with output

[DeathAndTaxes]

You are missing something.

Bitcoin doesn't send it back to the same address.  To obfuscate transactions the "change" is sent to a new address.

Take a look at the example provided.  

http://blockchain.info/tx-index/3486210/f6f4e145a09ad579cacae3d889323054868a3acf10262ec4ae5c2132fd37365e

Input address:
1Dv86AccHGjTJwKQtnqoN57T1CwCH4wZ9p  4.79 BTC (a prior transaction output)

Output Addresses:
1Kae15Czf2s8FCRhFJ7QoXuRsPqT3a6pD4  1.775 BTC (likely the amount spent/transfered)
1AGK35na7rvgHS9vvG3RyE4VGvUerDbMH1 3.0169 BTC (likely the "change" address)

[DeathAndTaxes]

what about this variation:
 - 5% fee on smallest input
 - 0.001btc per input if there are more than two inputs.

this would also give an incentive for small transactions (in bytes) which is good for the network

So if (to use the same example above) I am paying 1 BTC from 100 BTC input I pay 5BTC in fees to pay you 1 BTC?

Yeah that is going to be popular.

[flower1024]

what about this variation:
 - 5% fee on smallest input
 - 0.001btc per input if there are more than two inputs.

this would also give an incentive for small transactions (in bytes) which is good for the network

So if (to use the same example above) I am paying 1 BTC from 100 BTC input I pay 5BTC in fees to pay you 1 BTC?

Yeah that is going to be popular.

just corrected it... please replace input with output

[muyuu]

You are missing something.

Bitcoin doesn't send it back to the same address.  To obfuscate transactions the "change" is sent to a new address.

Take a look at the example provided.  

http://blockchain.info/tx-index/3486210/f6f4e145a09ad579cacae3d889323054868a3acf10262ec4ae5c2132fd37365e

Input address:
1Dv86AccHGjTJwKQtnqoN57T1CwCH4wZ9p  4.79 BTC (a prior transaction output)

Output Addresses:
1Kae15Czf2s8FCRhFJ7QoXuRsPqT3a6pD4  1.775 BTC (likely the amount spent/transfered)
1AGK35na7rvgHS9vvG3RyE4VGvUerDbMH1 3.0169 BTC (likely the "change" address)

Is that a behaviour from the standard client or is it enforced by the protocol?

Obviously to make these x% fees possible that would have to go. Or you'd be optionally paying an x% obfuscation fee.

[DeathAndTaxes]

what about this variation:
 - 5% fee on smallest input
 - 0.001btc per input if there are more than two inputs.

this would also give an incentive for small transactions (in bytes) which is good for the network

So if (to use the same example above) I am paying 1 BTC from 100 BTC input I pay 5BTC in fees to pay you 1 BTC?

Yeah that is going to be popular.

just corrected it... please replace input with output

Then you can easily game it by always including a small output back to yourself.
At which point the only fee paid is a flat 0.001 BTC (per KB) which is why I was saying % based fees will not work.
Fees need to be per KB not per input as that is the critical resource.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Is that a behaviour from the standard client or is it enforced by the protocol?

Obviously to make these x% fees possible that would have to go. Or you'd be optionally paying an x% obfuscation fee.

It can be changed but I would never support it.  Never.  Bitcoin isn't truly anonymous but the change function allows for psuedo-anonymous transactions.   Using same address for change return will make transaction tracking trivial.

% based fees aren't required and if that is the "price", it is a price too high.

[DeepBit]

Fees need to be per KB not per input as that is the critical resource.

This.
Also sigops can be limited resource too, sometimes.

[muyuu]

Is that a behaviour from the standard client or is it enforced by the protocol?

Obviously to make these x% fees possible that would have to go. Or you'd be optionally paying an x% obfuscation fee.

It can be changed but I would never support it.  Never.  Bitcoin isn't truly anonymous but the change function allows for psuedo-anonymous transactions.   Using same address for change return will make transaction tracking trivial.  Once an identity of an address is learned one can start building a map of transactions.

% based fees aren't required and if that is the "price" it is a price too high.

Transaction tracking is trivial anyway, and you'd always have the recourse of paying a %fee for obfuscation.

I was actually also thinking in adding a fee cap and a fee minimum. After all, what we want is some fee guarantee and also cheap transactions to be possible (would will be achieved by gobbling them up together, which would result in less blockchain bloat).

I think both pure % fees and fixed fees have serious caveats, therefore the solution would be having a range guaranteeing a minimum and a maximum fee, and some proportion to transactions so small ones are not strongly penalised. Do you want to heavily obfuscate? this is not free in terms of resources, so you pay the max (fixed) fee.

[kjj]

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)

I actually comprehended what I said before I even said it.

If you had comprehended what I said, you'd have noticed that I proposed a decentralized rule to temporarily delay accepting blocks that are conspicuously missing the bulk of visible valid transactions on the network.

I have good reasons to think that this is a botnet (described earlier), but I don't really care who or what is doing this.  I do, however, care that we are paying him for work that he isn't doing.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Do you want to heavily obfuscate? this is not free in terms of resources, so you pay the max (fixed) fee.

Of course it is "free" (more accurately no more cost).  It takes you the same amount of computing power to process the transaction regardless of the amount.   % based fees will never be supported by a lot of Bitcoin members.   Bitcoin transactions are more like checks (or wire drafts) than credit cards.

No bank charges a % of the face value to process checks.  They either process them for free, for a flat fee, or (in the case of businesses usually) on a per item basis.  Processing a 1 bitcent transaction or a 1 million bitcoin transaction takes the exact amount of processing power, requires the same amount of bandwidth, and has the same amount of lifetime storage cost.  The idea that one should cost 10,000,0000x more is stupid.  A miner shouldn't be compensated more just because he got "lucky" and solved the block with a massive transaction.

There is absolutely no need for % based fees.  None.  Having to give up obfuscation in order to "gain" something which is utterly unnecessary is a bad trade.

THE CRITICAL RESOURCES IS KB.  The space in the blockchain determines the cost of the transaction as it will need to be stored and will exist as tens of thousands of copies forever.  Charging based on face value misaligns the cost to the network with the compensation gained.

[muyuu]

Do you want to heavily obfuscate? this is not free in terms of resources, so you pay the max (fixed) fee.

Of course it is "free" (more accurately no more cost).  It takes you the same amount of computing power to process the transaction regardless of the amount.   % based fees will never be supported by a lot of Bitcoin members.   Bitcoin transactions are more like checks (or wire drafts) than credit cards.

No bank charges a % of the face value to process checks.  They either process them for free, for a flat fee, or (in the case of businesses usually) on a per item basis.  Processing a 1 bitcent transaction or a 1 million bitcoin transaction takes the exact amount of processing power, requires the same amount of bandwidth, and has the same amount of lifetime storage cost.  The idea that one should cost 10,000,0000x more is stupid.  A miner shouldn't be compensated more just because he got "lucky" and solved the block with a massive transaction.

There is absolutely no need for % based fees.  None.  Having to give up obfuscation in order to "gain" something which is utterly unnecessary is a bad trade.

THE CRITICAL RESOURCES IS KB.  The space in the blockchain determines the cost of the transaction as it will need to be stored and will exist as tens of thousands of copies forever.  Charging based on face value misaligns the cost to the network with the compensation gained.

Banks charge for transfers exactly how I described:

- A minimum fee.
- A % fee for most cases (usually added to the minimum fee, but sometimes not if said % fee exceeds an amount) then...
- A maximum fee (because otherwise their clients would simply try their best to avoid transfers for such quantities and the processing cost for the bank is the same).

A purely fixed fee is simple and attractive to miners but it would make a sufficiently small transaction too expensive. Therefore this fee should be very small, which is why I'm talking about a minimum fee (say 0.01 or even less).

Basing it on KB would have a similar effect.

When I said obfuscation is not free in terms of resources, I meant that adding outputs means adding KB. Adding just 1 output is probably negligible, but then you're doing a really crap obfuscation job as adding 1 single address more to track is trivial. If you had to obfuscate/launder a significant sum in a big number of said steps, paying a fixed fee you'd be paying through your nose to have a decently sized tree.

The thing is, if you make it on KB in a trivial way, then most people will make their transactions the simplest they can. Which destroys anonymity as any extra obfuscation would cost you. Obviously this depends on how much do you plan to charge per extra byte, but in the end you might end up with something very similar to what I describe above, in practice ([min,%/some function,max] ranges).

[DeathAndTaxes]

- A minimum fee.
- A % fee for most cases (usually added to the minimum fee, but sometimes not if said % fee exceeds an amount) then...
- A maximum fee (because otherwise their clients would simply try their best to avoid transfers for such quantities and the processing cost for the bank is the same).

I have never been charged a % fee for a wire transfer, ACH, or check.  Not in my business or personal accounts.

A purely fixed fee is simple and attractive to miners but it would make a sufficiently small transaction too expensive. Therefore this fee should be very small, which is why I'm talking about a minimum fee (say 0.01 or even less).

No it wouldn't.  No reason fees would need to be larger than the minimum you are proposing.

Paypal for example processes ~ 100 tps.  At 100 tps and avg fee of $0.01 each that is $31 million paid to miners each year.  At something more modest say 0.015 BTC avg ($0.06 per transaction) that is $200M.  In today's hardware that buys about 200 TH/s of protection.

Basing it on KB would have a similar effect.

It must be based on KB to avoid spam.  KB is the only true cost to the network.  Charging it on anything else is just dumb.  So high KB low value transactions (which have high cost) are charged a low fee and low KB high value transactions (which have a low cost) are charged a low fee.

When I said obfuscation is not free in terms of resources, I meant that adding outputs means adding KB. Adding just 1 output is probably negligible, but then you're doing a really crap obfuscation job as adding 1 single address more to track is trivial. If you had to obfuscate/launder a significant sum in a big number of said steps, paying a fixed fee you'd be paying through your nose to have a decently sized tree.

You always need a change address.  Stupidly sending it back to the input address doesn't take any less space.  Charging per kb already "solves" all potential complexity problems.  Larger = more complex.  It doesn't matter if it is because the person is cashing out 20,000 different inputs, sending it to 800 different people, obfuscating via multiple inputs or outputs, or using a very complex non-standard script.

The cost is per KB.
The price should always be KB.

The thing is, if you make it on KB in a trivial way, then most people will make their transactions the simplest they can. Which destroys anonymity as any extra obfuscation would cost you. Obviously this depends on how much do you plan to charge per extra byte, but in the end you might end up with something very similar to what I describe above, in practice ([min,%/some function,max] ranges).

Using same change address takes exactly the same amount of space.  Maybe you should read on how the protocol works before making suggestions to fix it?  You seemed totally clueless that a change address even existed 4 posts ago.

[spiccioli]

Do you want to heavily obfuscate? this is not free in terms of resources, so you pay the max (fixed) fee.

Of course it is "free" (more accurately no more cost).  It takes you the same amount of computing power to process the transaction regardless of the amount.   % based fees will never be supported by a lot of Bitcoin members.   Bitcoin transactions are more like checks (or wire drafts) than credit cards.

No bank charges a % of the face value to process checks.  They either process them for free, for a flat fee, or (in the case of businesses usually) on a per item basis.  Processing a 1 bitcent transaction or a 1 million bitcoin transaction takes the exact amount of processing power, requires the same amount of bandwidth, and has the same amount of lifetime storage cost.  The idea that one should cost 10,000,0000x more is stupid.  A miner shouldn't be compensated more just because he got "lucky" and solved the block with a massive transaction.

There is absolutely no need for % based fees.  None.  Having to give up obfuscation in order to "gain" something which is utterly unnecessary is a bad trade.

THE CRITICAL RESOURCES IS KB.  The space in the blockchain determines the cost of the transaction as it will need to be stored and will exist as tens of thousands of copies forever.  Charging based on face value misaligns the cost to the network with the compensation gained.

Banks charge for transfers exactly how I described:

- A minimum fee.
- A % fee for most cases (usually added to the minimum fee, but sometimes not if said % fee exceeds an amount) then...
- A maximum fee (because otherwise their clients would simply try their best to avoid transfers for such quantities and the processing cost for the bank is the same).

A purely fixed fee is simple and attractive to miners but it would make a sufficiently small transaction too expensive. Therefore this fee should be very small, which is why I'm talking about a minimum fee (say 0.01 or even less).

Basing it on KB would have a similar effect.

When I said obfuscation is not free in terms of resources, I meant that adding outputs means adding KB. Adding just 1 output is probably negligible, but then you're doing a really crap obfuscation job as adding 1 single address more to track is trivial. If you had to obfuscate/launder a significant sum in a big number of said steps, paying a fixed fee you'd be paying through your nose to have a decently sized tree.

The thing is, if you make it on KB in a trivial way, then most people will make their transactions the simplest they can. Which destroys anonymity as any extra obfuscation would cost you. Obviously this depends on how much do you plan to charge per extra byte, but in the end you might end up with something very similar to what I describe above, in practice ([min,%/some function,max] ranges).

muyuu,

why do you want bitcoin to become more or less like a bank?

using fees to stop empty blocks is wrong and can become cumbersome.

instead, stop blocks that do not contain at least n% of waiting (at the time block is solved) transactions, where n can be based on the number of waiting transactions or their value (input+output).

this way you don't have fees and you can even mine empty blocks if nobody is doing transactions, otherwise you have to do you work and confirm them.

spiccioli

[muyuu]

Using same change address takes exactly the same amount of space.  Maybe you should read on how the protocol works before making suggestions to fix it?  You seemed totally clueless that a change address even existed 4 posts ago.

I understand this point. But having a change address vs "stupidly" sending it back to you makes a negligible difference if tracking difficulty. In fact, you are making sure that even the most trivial tracker counts on it. But fair enough, it adds no KB since a change address is needed anyway (I'd say you also make it impossible to have a trivial % fee system, as a side effect, but let's forget about that).

Fine by me if you want to make any extra obfuscation cost, as resources are not free. Just take the basic level obfuscation that comes from using a different change address, and anything extra make it cost. That's all fine. It will however result in most people minimising trying not to do any more obfuscation than that to avoid cost.

If you come with actual numbers we can make some calculations, but such a fee that would compete with block reward at this point is going to be really high and destroy small transactions. That was my main concern because it's the first conclusion one would make to a 0.1 fee or higher.

[muyuu]

muyuu,

why do you want bitcoin to become more or less like a bank?

using fees to stop empty blocks is wrong and can become cumbersome.

I know many bitcoiners are bitcoiners in the first place because of hatred towards banks. But that was not the point at all.

It's not being like banks. It's that banks address the same concerns when they process transfers:

- they want to collect a fee
- they don't want to discourage transfers as that means no fee
- they know they can collect more when transfers are bigger, because it means more money is involved
- they try not to over-collect over a point as their cost is the same and big players can start looking for different channels

So basically trying to collect in a similar way to banks is not being like banks. It means banks have to address the same problem.

I came with the transfer fee scheme (as usually happens in Europe) and DeathAndTaxes countered with a check fee scheme. Checks are not the same as typical checks are all within a quantity big enough that's worth to go and collect, and not so big it's crazy to pick such amount of money in cash. So a fixed scheme suits that well.

Bankers also pee and sleep? do you sleep or do you try to avoid behaving like a banker?

instead, stop blocks that do not contain at least n% of waiting (at the time block is solved) transactions, where n can be based on the number of waiting transactions or their value (input+output).

this way you don't have fees and you can even mine empty blocks if nobody is doing transactions, otherwise you have to do you work and confirm them.

spiccioli

This involves dealing with network implementation concerns. Thing is, it's not really trivial to determine if a miner has not seen a transaction or he has simply ignored it. It's probably a feasible mechanism within some accepted % error.

All this extra networking work would not be compensated though. Remember miners have no obligation to include transactions. I can understand big miners will try to use this opportunity to enforce some fees, and rightly so. You are basically asking the miners to do extra work to guarantee that freeloaders can continue to use their work for free, and that they will compete with botnets and "free electricity dorms" with no compensation whatsoever.