1) We know that more kb in a transaction = higher optional fees
2) We know that not paying the fees is (currently) feasible, but not advised. Txs will be slow, but will eventually make it.
3) We know that if you have small incoming transactions then you pay higher fees. This is why you don't get mining pools to pay you in 0.01 increments, as then paying someone 5btc might be
This takes up lots of space in the blockchain, and yields much higher fees.
However, say I'm a bitcoin saver (there's many of us out there who "invest", but don't have much to spend them on yet). If I'm OK with not having access to my money for a while, would it be a wise "solution" to this issue to send my entire networth to one "loopback" address that I also own, paying no TX fee?
Best case, these transactions "make it through", someone signs blockchain and I get one big "lump" back instead of little "lumps" of bitcoins.
Worst case, these txs never get accepted, I eventually need the money, I "double spend" them (with real fees this time), my 2nd spend gets accepted by the blockchain, and my first spends are invalidated since they aren't in the chain and probably never will be.
Please outline your thoughts: I know the official client doesn't allow double spending nor does it allow zero fee "itty bitty" transactions like I'm saying, but this is kind of a solution to the fact that pooled mining and other btc generation techniques are paying some of us in bitcents, and it also solves the problem of "microtransactions": microtransactions might be perceived as worth less than face value due to their fragmentation but surely this technique would sufficiently defrag it: all a microtransaction merchant would need to do is mature the coins by mining and signing their own tx's into the blockchain: or counting on some good Samaritan to do it for free.
Maybe this was trivial/obvious, or maybe I'm talking out of my behind and I misinterpreted the bitcoin protocol entirely. Do tell!