Is it possible that bitcoin will become unaffordable to use for micropayments?

[myrkul]

I think bitcoin would be better off with a very low price but a very high value.  Moving the decimal place would help that.

Settings > Options > Display > Unit to show amounts in > µBTC

Problem solved.

[1713451503]

1713451503

[1713451503]

1713451503

[1713451503]

1713451503

[1713451503]

1713451503

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think bitcoin would be better off with a very low price but a very high value.  Moving the decimal place would help that.

Settings > Options > Display > Unit to show amounts in > µBTC

Problem solved.

Exactly  Bitcoin does have a very low price:  ~$0.01 per mBTC and there will be a high number of units ~21 billion mBTC.    

[nimda]

I think bitcoin would be better off with a very low price but a very high value.  Moving the decimal place would help that.

Settings > Options > Display > Unit to show amounts in > µBTC

Problem solved.

Exactly  Bitcoin does have a very low price:  ~$0.1 per mBTC and there will be a high number of units ~21 billion mBTC.   

I think you're missing a 0, good sir.

[matthewh3]

I think bitcoin would be better off with a very low price but a very high value.  Moving the decimal place would help that.

Settings > Options > Display > Unit to show amounts in > µBTC

Problem solved.

I don't use the default bitcoin wallet and neither will new adopters or the masses.  Calling them micro/milliBitcoins and working in different values requires more effort and thought for new adopters.  Just having a single simple unit that is easy to correlate with the $/€/£ would be simpler and ease adoption plus use.   

[myrkul]

I think bitcoin would be better off with a very low price but a very high value.  Moving the decimal place would help that.

Settings > Options > Display > Unit to show amounts in > µBTC

Problem solved.

I don't use the default bitcoin wallet and neither will new adopters or the masses.  Calling them micro/milliBitcoins and working in different values requires more effort and thought for new adopters.  Just having a single simple unit that is easy to correlate with the $/€/£ would be simpler and ease adoption plus use.   

We do have a single simple unit that is easy to correlate with the $/€/£. it is the BTC.
Currently the exchange rates are:
1BTC =
1BTC =
1BTC =

Tell me what wallet application you use, and I may be able to provide the steps necessary to achieve your goal in your application.

[matthewh3]

I think bitcoin would be better off with a very low price but a very high value.  Moving the decimal place would help that.

Settings > Options > Display > Unit to show amounts in > µBTC

Problem solved.

I don't use the default bitcoin wallet and neither will new adopters or the masses.  Calling them micro/milliBitcoins and working in different values requires more effort and thought for new adopters.  Just having a single simple unit that is easy to correlate with the $/€/£ would be simpler and ease adoption plus use.   

We do have a single simple unit that is easy to correlate with the $/€/£. it is the BTC.
Currently the exchange rates are:
1BTC =
1BTC =
1BTC =

Tell me what wallet application you use, and I may be able to provide the steps necessary to achieve your goal in your application.

Yeah how to get a blockchain.info/MyWallet to permanently stay in GBP 

[myrkul]

Yeah how to get a blockchain.info/MyWallet to permanently stay in GBP 

Now, that one, I don't know. However, this guy might: support@pi.uk.com

Other contact info (including a UK phone number) here.

[g3raint]

Campaign for 0.000001 fee for bitcoin.

I can already +1  and +1 again (me, myself and I)

G:)

[Sindelar1938]

Highly unlikely I would think but must confess that I would also like a comment on this from somebody more knowledgeable

Good concern to have

[teukon]

The problem of fees for micro-payments only comes up when you want to send/receive many of them (when even Bitcoin's lowish fees become a burden).

If everyone you are dealing with is sending/receiving very few micro-payments (maybe you own and run some form of online game) then just have them pay the fees.

If many of the people you are dealing with are also sending/receiving many micro-payments (maybe payments for bandwidth on a darknet or for a torrent; something organised but decentralised) then you could use probabilistic payments to reduce your fees down to the cost of sending/receiving a few packets of data to/from a peer.  Probabilistic payments have the drawback of variance but this will be drowned out by the volume of payments you expect to make.

[NUFCrichard]

If there is no rush, then send without any transaction fee. I feel bitcoin wouldn't work for a pay as you read system or alike for online newspapers. The confirmation times are too slow, I want to click and read, it click, wait upto 20minutes them read...

[matthewh3]

If there is no rush, then send without any transaction fee. I feel bitcoin wouldn't work for a pay as you read system or alike for online newspapers. The confirmation times are too slow, I want to click and read, it click, wait upto 20minutes them read...

bitpay doesn't wait for a block to confirm your payment why should a newspaper.

[Salivan]

I am whining about this for some time

Why not use an effectively dead  bitcoin address.An another payment system would originate there. With different rules I don't know what  kind of  properties are needed to enable  dust operation but I think it is feasible. Lost coin for bitcoin network could be  the root of value in this  parallel "world"     

[bloss]

Well, this morning, Mt.Gox informed us that they will require a 0.001 BTC transaction fee to "increase the speed of transactions in the network."
At current prices, that is over a dollar (US).  That's getting expensive.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Well, this morning, Mt.Gox informed us that they will require a 0.001 BTC transaction fee to "increase the speed of transactions in the network."
At current prices, that is over a dollar (US).  That's getting expensive.

You sure it wasn't 0.0001.  If it is then it is more like $0.10 not a dollar.  If it isn't then you should ask MtGox why they are charging fees 10x what is required by the network.

[johnyj]

At 0.0005 fee, 2 thousand transactions will make 1 bitcoin for miners each block, and that is approaching the block size limit

Anyway the micro payment is not the main purpose of using bitcoin, the store of value and international transaction are most important. For daily purchase of grocery,  people already have credit card and mobile payment solutions from banks

[bloss]

The transaction fee is 0.001 BTC at MtGox.  It is near the end of the press release.
https://www.mtgox.com/press_release_20131120.html

[DeathAndTaxes]

The transaction fee is 0.001 BTC at MtGox.  It is near the end of the press release.
https://www.mtgox.com/press_release_20131120.html

Then ask MtGox why they are ripping you off charging 20x what is necessary.  Then look at how much they are actually paying.   MtGox ripping customers off is nothing new it also has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

[Nagle]

The transaction fee is 0.001 BTC at MtGox.  It is near the end of the press release.
https://www.mtgox.com/press_release_20131120.html

Then ask MtGox why they are ripping you off charging 20x what is necessary.  Then look at how much they are actually paying.   MtGox ripping customers off is nothing new it also has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is starting to hit scaling problems. Look at Mt. Gox Bitcoin transactions unconfirmed after 2 hours. 155 in the queue right now, but numbers from 400 to 1000 have been seen. Also look at average transaction confirmation time. During busy periods, it's been spiking up lately. There's now enough transaction volume to temporarily saturate the network. This isn't happening all the time, but it is happening frequently now.  Mt. Gox has been getting complaints about how long it takes to confirm transactions, so they've bumped up their fee to the point that theirs should get through.

Many of the mining pools are only generating 250K blocks as a default. The Bitcoin client can be configured for bigger blocks, but it doesn't have to be. There are negative incentives to miners in making their blocks bigger - their confirmations slow, and there's a risk of an orphan block.   This is slowing confirmations. A bigger fee can get your transaction confirmed sooner.  See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=339505.0

[shadowninjax]

So what might be a good solution to this?