xf2_org (OP)
Member
 Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 13
|
 |
May 09, 2011, 05:41:23 PM |
|
Consensus on IRC seems to be building around a change to the minimum TX fee, reducing from 0.01 to 0.0005 BTC. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees for a refresher course on TX fees. The minimum free TX value would remain at 0.01 BTC. |
|
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
|
|
May 09, 2011, 05:42:06 PM |
|
+.0005 4 US cents is ridiculous. |
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone. |
|
|
|
nanotube
|
|
May 09, 2011, 05:53:06 PM |
|
i can buy that.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
May 09, 2011, 05:53:29 PM |
|
I'm in favor, just keep in mind that the txes with such low fees/outputs will probably not confirm for quite a while (limited space per block for "very low priority" transactions).
|
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
|
|
May 09, 2011, 06:00:32 PM |
|
I'm in favor, just keep in mind that the txes with such low fees/outputs will probably not confirm for quite a while (limited space per block for "very low priority" transactions).
I thought 'priority' only ranked free tx. I could be wrong. |
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone. |
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
May 09, 2011, 06:03:00 PM |
|
I'm in favor, just keep in mind that the txes with such low fees/outputs will probably not confirm for quite a while (limited space per block for "very low priority" transactions).
I thought 'priority' only ranked free tx. I could be wrong. Priority ranks all txes until they get accepted, however currently only "very low priority txes" have issues as blocks have plenty of space but there is a limited space reserved for "very low priority txes". |
|
|
|
|
db
|
|
May 09, 2011, 06:24:56 PM |
|
This "consensus" talk gives a bad feeling. Prices should be set by markets.
|
|
|
|
|
JJG
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 20
|
|
May 09, 2011, 06:34:45 PM |
|
This "consensus" talk gives a bad feeling. Prices should be set by markets.
This consensus is among avid bitcoin fans. If even these guys thing the TX fees are too high, then the general bitcoin-wary public will probably agree even more vehemently. These people are the market. And if they think the TX fees are too high then they will just not use bitcoin. I don't think that's the kind of free-market adjustment that would do the bitcoin economy any favors. |
|
|
|
|
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 2301
Chief Scientist
|
|
May 09, 2011, 06:35:45 PM |
|
This "consensus" talk gives a bad feeling. Prices should be set by markets.
Agreed; that is the longer-term goal. This is a short-term fix. |
How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
May 09, 2011, 06:37:10 PM |
|
Why not have no minimum? I realize that this will lead to many people spamming the lowest # of bitcoins possible to have a paid transaction, but the market should reset transaction fees to the optimal price. Am I right?
|
|
|
|
|
xf2_org (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 13
|
|
May 09, 2011, 06:41:42 PM |
|
This is just the default ruleset. Miners are free to choose their own rules. I believe luke-jr's pool requires all TX's to have a fee, if an extremely minimal one. I disagree with his policy, but it illustrates the free market already at work. If the Mining Majority wants a different ruleset, then the default ruleset won't be worth the paper it isn't printed on  |
|
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
May 09, 2011, 06:48:45 PM |
|
This is just the default ruleset. Miners are free to choose their own rules. I believe luke-jr's pool requires all TX's to have a fee, if an extremely minimal one. I disagree with his policy, but it illustrates the free market already at work. If the Mining Majority wants a different ruleset, then the default ruleset won't be worth the paper it isn't printed on Gotcha - I didn't realize that miners/pools could pick what tx fee they wanted. So whether free transactions go through is dependent on which miner/pool finds the "winning" block, and whether it allows free transactions or not? |
|
|
|
|
|
Garrett Burgwardt
|
|
May 09, 2011, 06:51:00 PM |
|
Yes, the pool that finds the block uses their own rules to determine what txs get put in.
This is essentially just choosing the minimum fee in the default btc client.
I would recommend making it completely optional, but explain the length of time it is likely to take before your tx would go through to the user and make them click send anyway or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
k
|
|
May 09, 2011, 06:53:41 PM |
|
has the minimum possible tx fee been reduced? I see a tx fee of 0.0017028 included in this recent block http://blockexplorer.com/b/122954I thought the min. fee was 0.01or was there always a way to do lower fees somehow if you wanted (i.e not zero but <0.01)? |
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
May 09, 2011, 06:57:01 PM |
|
It also sets the relay limit, so if this is set to 0.0005, txes with fee<0.0005 won't be relayed and probably won't end up in a block period (unless they use -addnode to get hooked up to luke-jr's pool).
|
|
|
|
|
Raulo
|
|
May 09, 2011, 07:00:00 PM |
|
With 0.0005 BTC fee per 1KB, a 1MB block is going to bring just 0.5 BTC. What about the idea that the fees were going to replace the generation bonus when it will be smaller?
Another problem with the fees is that they govern not only inclusion in the block by also relaying of the transactions. The miners are free to set the fee rules but most of the cost of processing the transactions is borne by relay nodes that get nothing.
|
1HAoJag4C3XtAmQJAhE9FTAAJWFcrvpdLM
|
|
|
|
Raulo
|
|
May 09, 2011, 07:02:17 PM |
|
It also sets the relay limit, so if this is set to 0.0005, txes with fee<0.0005 won't be relayed and probably won't end up in a block period (unless they use -addnode to get hooked up to luke-jr's pool).
Transactions with a fee below the minimum fee set by the relay node are treated in the same way as free transactions so they will be relayed if they meet the free transaction criteria. |
1HAoJag4C3XtAmQJAhE9FTAAJWFcrvpdLM
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
May 09, 2011, 07:05:49 PM |
|
This is just the default ruleset.
Miners are free to choose their own rules. I believe luke-jr's pool requires all TX's to have a fee, if an extremely minimal one.
And, last I heard, ArtForz's mining cluster is set to accept all free transactions regardless of the standard blocksize limit for free transactions, so it all evens out in the end. My opinion is that the rule should be changed to drop the minimum fee in the default client and set back the minimum free transaction as well. The massive growth we have seen recently has moved these limits from really tiny amounts to non-trivial limits, and the growth isn't likely over. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1060
|
|
May 09, 2011, 07:53:30 PM |
|
If the fee is realistic, the transaction value shouldn't matter (because it doesn't affect the processing costs).
Why not 0.001 BTC regardless of transaction value?
This fee has the advantage that it is one millibitcoin, and so can introduce users to this term. "Five hundred microbitcoins" is a little less simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
May 09, 2011, 07:54:04 PM |
|
Transactions with a fee below the minimum fee set by the relay node are treated in the same way as free transactions so they will be relayed if they meet the free transaction criteria.
Yes, but one of the largest motivations behind this was the option to relay transactions which are over the size limit and do not pay a fee and would normally not be relayed. Remember that this really won't change what ends up in a block much as the very low priority transactions already don't get confirmed until they age. |
|
|
|
|
