Just what is a FAIR fee to send a Bitcoin transaction?

[Window2Wall]

considering most bank transfers cost roughly €0.09, $0.05

Seriously?
In my country most bank transfers don't cost anything.
So, I stick with that also in Bitcoin. Miners get block reward, so I don't see why they should get transaction fees.

Pool operators share their reward with everybody that helped solve the block, they may charge a slight fee off of that block. TX fees, generally, also go to pool operators.

Generally speaking the TX fees have gone to the miners since the block reward was halved from 50 BTC to 25 BTC. The only real exception to this rule are the PPS pool operators however the miners are getting a huge advantage of not having to deal with pool variance (the attractiveness of running a miner on a PPS - pay per share - pool/payout system will decrease over time as block subsidies make up a less percentage of total block rewards and TX fees make up larger parts of block reward)

[pawel7777]

Something between $0.01 - $0.05 is perfect imho (in current conditions). If fees are too high, that would kill the small tx (low value purchases, donations, tips etc) and would make BTC less competitive and less appealing comparing to cc, paypal and others.

Then again, fees need to be high enough to compensate for mining costs (when block rewards become insignificant). So it's all about balance.

Flexible fees may also be a good idea, i.e. equivalent of $0.005 for micro tx (up to $5?), $0.05 for tx of $5-$500 and $0.50 for >$500. Don't think that's possible to implement tho.

[frankenmint]

I think the should 5 cents / less (5k satoshi / less)
And all tx must have fee

Most of people voted for 1 cent or less I agree with that

I disagree with your opinion, who will mine if the diff. very high & tx fee is very low

Satoshi said that no tx needs a fee unless the amount you are sending out is equal to or above 200x the largest transaction you have received.

1 cent for every 2 dollars, that's reasonable - fyi 40K requires a 200 dollar fee.

[pitham1]

considering most bank transfers cost roughly €0.09, $0.05

Seriously?
In my country most bank transfers don't cost anything.
So, I stick with that also in Bitcoin. Miners get block reward, so I don't see why they should get transaction fees.

Banks have a lot of other avenues for earning income, apart from transaction fees.
As the block reward reduces over the years, transaction fees will become the main source of income for miners.

[Kluge]

considering most bank transfers cost roughly €0.09, $0.05

Seriously?
In my country most bank transfers don't cost anything.
So, I stick with that also in Bitcoin. Miners get block reward, so I don't see why they should get transaction fees.

Banks have a lot of other avenues for earning income, apart from transaction fees.
As the block reward reduces over the years, transaction fees will become the main source of income for miners.

... o.O You know, advertising fees could be an answer to offsetting the cost burden of transmitting blocks and transactions in queue. Some kind of score system could be come up with... maybe each transaction transmitted adds a score of 1, where each block transmitted adds a score of 250, and the transmitting node can include some kind of standardized referral or CPM protocol, where Core or similar client software automatically generates an address specifically for this (or the user could manually assign which address they want their coins).

The receiving client keeps track of this and uses the scores for a raffled ad rotation system. The receivers' local client uses the user's unique ID for use in any compliant ad server. The receiver, then, can use this list and use the ad server to dedicate an ad slot on their platform (website, app, whatever) to paying back people sending him data.

It adds a lot of overhead and sounds like a real pain in the ass to implement, and it relies on people being nice, but I never even thought it was possible to pay transmitters, before. Sounds really complicated (and would probably need to be partially centralized so it isn't BFL/Pirateat40/BitcoinTrader spam 24/7), but clients could handle this all with default settings and downloading a kind of add-on which transmits the extra data. The rest'd be on the major service providers.

[briantree]

considering most bank transfers cost roughly €0.09, $0.05

Seriously?
In my country most bank transfers don't cost anything.
So, I stick with that also in Bitcoin. Miners get block reward, so I don't see why they should get transaction fees.

Banks have a lot of other avenues for earning income, apart from transaction fees.
As the block reward reduces over the years, transaction fees will become the main source of income for miners.

@pitham1 What country do you live in? Did you make the transfer to another user in the same banking system, e.g. from POSB Singapore to another POSB Singapore? Otherwise I highly doubt that it's free.

Meanwhile in US:
[wiki]In the United States, domestic wire transfers are governed by Federal Regulation J[5] and by Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code.[6] US wire transfers are costly, for example, as of November 2011 the Bank Of America charged $25 to send a wire and $12 to receive one within the U.S. For international transfer, it charged $35–$45 outgoing, $16 incoming[/wiki]

I don't think miners will be necessary after we've mined enough coins (2040 something..). There needs to be dedicated servers for TX verification. How do we fund those servers, that's the next question. Again. the core concept of Bitcoin/Altcoin is about de-centralization, but the network needs to be funded somehow.

More at: http://bitcoinfees.com/ "The fee, when it is required, is usually worth less than 40 US cents.". "If you can wait for 10 hours, there will be no transaction fee".

IMHO 10 mBTC for TX fee is still considered super cheap as compared to other service providers.

[jonald_fyookball]

You are correct about the bank fees....but Incorrect about bitcoin.

We will ALWAYS need miners, it is the basis.  Please learn more about Bitcoin.  

[ytr8]

3 cents is  appropriate

[ScreamnShout]

considering most bank transfers cost roughly €0.09, $0.05

Seriously?
In my country most bank transfers don't cost anything.
So, I stick with that also in Bitcoin. Miners get block reward, so I don't see why they should get transaction fees.

Banks have a lot of other avenues for earning income, apart from transaction fees.
As the block reward reduces over the years, transaction fees will become the main source of income for miners.

... o.O You know, advertising fees could be an answer to offsetting the cost burden of transmitting blocks and transactions in queue. Some kind of score system could be come up with... maybe each transaction transmitted adds a score of 1, where each block transmitted adds a score of 250, and the transmitting node can include some kind of standardized referral or CPM protocol, where Core or similar client software automatically generates an address specifically for this (or the user could manually assign which address they want their coins).

The receiving client keeps track of this and uses the scores for a raffled ad rotation system. The receivers' local client uses the user's unique ID for use in any compliant ad server. The receiver, then, can use this list and use the ad server to dedicate an ad slot on their platform (website, app, whatever) to paying back people sending him data.

It adds a lot of overhead and sounds like a real pain in the ass to implement, and it relies on people being nice, but I never even thought it was possible to pay transmitters, before. Sounds really complicated (and would probably need to be partially centralized so it isn't BFL/Pirateat40/BitcoinTrader spam 24/7), but clients could handle this all with default settings and downloading a kind of add-on which transmits the extra data. The rest'd be on the major service providers.

This would require either proof of full node or proof of transmission when giving out the "raffle" tickets. The only mining protocol that Bitcoin will be able to support in order to still be considered Bitcoin is Proof of Work.

[1echo]

0,0001 is cool

[Kluge]

considering most bank transfers cost roughly €0.09, $0.05

Seriously?
In my country most bank transfers don't cost anything.
So, I stick with that also in Bitcoin. Miners get block reward, so I don't see why they should get transaction fees.

Banks have a lot of other avenues for earning income, apart from transaction fees.
As the block reward reduces over the years, transaction fees will become the main source of income for miners.

... o.O You know, advertising fees could be an answer to offsetting the cost burden of transmitting blocks and transactions in queue. Some kind of score system could be come up with... maybe each transaction transmitted adds a score of 1, where each block transmitted adds a score of 250, and the transmitting node can include some kind of standardized referral or CPM protocol, where Core or similar client software automatically generates an address specifically for this (or the user could manually assign which address they want their coins).

The receiving client keeps track of this and uses the scores for a raffled ad rotation system. The receivers' local client uses the user's unique ID for use in any compliant ad server. The receiver, then, can use this list and use the ad server to dedicate an ad slot on their platform (website, app, whatever) to paying back people sending him data.

It adds a lot of overhead and sounds like a real pain in the ass to implement, and it relies on people being nice, but I never even thought it was possible to pay transmitters, before. Sounds really complicated (and would probably need to be partially centralized so it isn't BFL/Pirateat40/BitcoinTrader spam 24/7), but clients could handle this all with default settings and downloading a kind of add-on which transmits the extra data. The rest'd be on the major service providers.

This would require either proof of full node or proof of transmission when giving out the "raffle" tickets. The only mining protocol that Bitcoin will be able to support in order to still be considered Bitcoin is Proof of Work.

This is totally separate from mining. I don't see any reason why you'd want to verify. The misbehavior mechanism should prevent clients from spamming illegitimate transactions to try bumping up their raffle ticket count. Wallet client software could also automatically prune transactions which are dumped from queue rather than eventually being included in a block to help prevent that.

[novacn]

Enough to keep all miners pleased...
Don't mess with them, because they are the endorsement of the whole network.
More transactions in a block means lower tx fee, but generally higher award for miners.

[tvbcof]

From another thread:

It would be quite easy to get a 'cash back' for using Bitcoin.  The intel value coming off of the solution probably exceeds the value of being able to scan people's 'private' e-mail and spy on their surfing habits.  I don't doubt for a minute that a majority of people would 'jump eeen it.'  Especially now in the late 2014 makeup of the community.

Next time you do one of these polls, it would be more complete to have an option to find out how many people would like to simply have a handful of the large players operating Bitcoin and providing various perks for using Bitcoin on their platform.  My guess is that it would be a wildly popular option and that only a sliver of the worldwide population would see any potential issues with it.

As a bonus, the transaction rate cap could be lifted entirely making micro-transactions practicable.  This because the top tier infrastructure providers have the ability to scale almost indefinitely, and they also could meet the BitLicence requirements in terms of personal identification and probably would love an excuse to do so.

Yet another bonus would be that with only a handful of infrastructure providers they can optimize between their facilities and could easily solve the 10-minute block latency related issues and make Bitcoin a real-time solution.  Particularly if they had high-reliability personal identification of their users.

[briantree]

You are correct about the bank fees....but Incorrect about bitcoin.

We will ALWAYS need miners, it is the basis.  Please learn more about Bitcoin.  

I don't mean we don't need miners. I mean for the process to be automated. Think about big data-centers running on renewable energy. A Netherland windmill with a Bitcoin logo on it..
As I'm literally looking at my colleagues counting his(her) coin he(she) is mining at home; I disagree with the efficiency of home-based miners. Miners will grow weary soon. Or at least up until 2040. By that time who knows what the picture is like.
For now let's keep them happy. I like my colleague when he(she) is happy.

[jonald_fyookball]

i get your point.  i think Gavin said something like that once.  Like toasters and everyday appliances will just
have mining built in, etc.  Or we can use SHA-256 mining to produce heat, stuff like that.  I agree
it could go that direction.

[pequelore]

Miners will be happy with 0.0001

[vipgelsi]

.0001

[jennifer21]

Anything bigger will make bitcoiners angry.

[solex]

Now that sequences of blocks are relatively close to the maximum, and a lot of spamming is going on, is there an opinion that fees are too low?
8 months ago 55% selected 1 cent or less, 81% selected 5 cents. Are higher fees the best defense against spammers?

[jbrnt]

What are fees for? Fees are subsidy to miners and fees are only at 2% of total revenue for mining a block. Miners want more fees, but they don't need it now in 2015. Higher fees increase the costs of spam. It does not stop spam. Higher fees could reduce spam but also price-out low income users. Bitcoin is a global currency. There are parts of the world where $1 can buy food for the whole family. We cannot set fee to be too high. We need to have low fees to promote bitcoin for these worse-off countries.