How to Track, Get and Set the Best Transaction Fees with ...
FREE BTC GENERATOR Bitcoin Generator Without Miners Fee
Transaction without fee - Bitcoin Stack Exchange
wafflepool.com - An auto switching scrypt coin mining pool
WafflePool is a multi-coin (scrypt) mining pool. Point your miner to WafflePool with a Bitcoin address as your username, and we take care of automatically mining the most profitable coin at all times, converting the earnings from each coin into Bitcoins, and paying you out in bitcoins! Mining alt-coins and converting to bitcoin is very often orders of magnitude more valuable than mining Bitcoin directly! No registration, no hassles, just point and start getting paid!
Elisia is the most exciting development in the blockchain world since Satoshi Nakamoto unleashed Bitcoin in 2008. Elisa provides lightning fast transactions with no fee. Each Elisia transaction will reach its destination in lightning speed without any fee to sender or receiver! Decentralized Applications (DAPPS) can be created with ease and deployed on the Elisia network with a click of a button without any fee for deployment.
The following post by hearts_hacker_007 is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7wnsgc The original post's content was as follows:
Gdax fee was charged for my first transaction. After that no fee was charged. I am using limit to place my order. Any idea why?
I sent Bitcoin from Blockchain and 12 hours later there are still no confirmations. I think it's because Blockchain put the transaction fee too low, is there anything I can do about this or do I just have to sit and wait? After a certain amount of time will the coins go back to my initial wallet?
We can use AVA to completely and fully scale Bitcoin
1) We need an automated process for locking up Bitcoin and getting a token in return 2) And we need free transactions with hashpuzzle-based spam protection so that Bitcoin users don't need to acqire an "altcoin" (this is unofficially on the roadmap I think.) 3) Then we just build the basic infrastructure. AVA would be the fastest, cheapest, and most reliable second-layer solution to scaling Bitcoin It would be 100% free to send and receive Bitcoin, no transaction fees... and instant.... Whales could lock up large amounts and sell the tokens for a profit to help speed up the onboarding process. If we captured this, we would create millions if not billions in value. And its totally symbiotic. Image Related
"Bitcoin [Core] mempool is blowing up right now, to me it looks like a primary miner is cutting off mining to grow the transaction fee cost... there are 1 hour intervals with no blocks mined, about an hour ago there was a huge chunk of low cost transactions thrown into the network.."
07-04 05:05 - 'Big advocate for Crypto.com. Currently no fees (will go back to low fees in a few months most likely), instant transactions, and easy to use. They require KYC in case that's a concern. / There's a $50 sign up bonus with a r...' by /u/Ezellular removed from /r/Bitcoin within 270-280min
''' Big advocate for Crypto.com. Currently no fees (will go back to low fees in a few months most likely), instant transactions, and easy to use. They require KYC in case that's a concern. There's a $50 sign up bonus with a referral code as well if you're thinking of getting the Visa card. Feel free to use mine if you want: 3388y6baxh ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: Ezellular
07-04 05:05 - 'Crypto.com has had no fees since March and will last a few more months. Before though, the fees were pretty low as it were. The transactions are instant and trading, staking, and withdrawing is very easy and streamline. I'd...' by /u/Ezellular removed from /r/Bitcoin within 283-293min
''' Crypto.com has had no fees since March and will last a few more months. Before though, the fees were pretty low as it were. The transactions are instant and trading, staking, and withdrawing is very easy and streamline. I'd highly recommend. If you have a referral code, you can get a $50 sign up bonus if you're interested in their MCO Visa Card. Feel free to use mine if you need one 3388y6baxh. Hope that helps. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: Ezellular
Just checked /r/Bitcoin, no mention of high transaction fees or 95k unconfirmed transactions (few hours ago)
Whole first page of /Bitcoin is filled with price pump topics, some guy even dreaming about 330k$ Bitcoin inside one year. It's unimaginable how badly would the Bitcoin network congest on such prices if it cannot withstand current hype and transaction volume. The fact is that Bitcoin is no where near ready for mass adoption and whoever thinks this BTC run vs "shitcoins" is gonna last much longer is gonna get a reality check pretty soon. There are blockchains which can scale with instant speed and no fees, green and so on. Bitcoin is the first one and it showed us the light and we all love it. It's a good store of value since your funds are protected with a lot of hashing power but that's about it. P2p transaction market, m2m transaction market and smart contracts niche will need their own native platforms and they do exist and pretty much should not depend on Bitcoin at all. Oh yeah, Bitcoin are all about Bitcoin being "the most decentralized" argument, but it seems to me like it's a fact that CZ from Binance is not supporting Segwit and cheaper transaction because of his close ties with Bitmain (most hash rate on Bitcoin), who is also not supporting it and rather has it congested with high fees as it is to milk more money from the users. Those are 2 people manipulating the whole Bitcoin blockchain because of their own personal gains, that's how decentralized Bitcoin is today.
How do we deal with the rest of the free riders in bitcoin? I propose a 12.5% fee is deducted from each transaction to support the development pool. Actually, now that there are no free riders, we can lower the fee to a more reasonable 2.5%.
So this proposal covers now exchanges, wallets, users, casinos. There is only one free rider left that we need to deal with. How do we deal with hodlers free riding?
05-11 21:55 - '1. No central authority and no heavy transaction fees gets me excited about Bitcoin. 2. With half Bitcoin, i would invest part of it into stable coins and will use the other half to fund my application fees to Universities.' by /u/lordvissu removed from /r/Bitcoin within 1-11min
No central authority and no heavy transaction fees gets me excited about Bitcoin.
With half Bitcoin, i would invest part of it into stable coins and will use the other half to fund my application fees to Universities.
Who will secure Bitcoin’s (BTC) network when there’s no more tx fee income cause everything moved off-chain? Whitepaper: ‘Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.’
"To those arguing that Bitcoin Core fees are no longer "through the roof". It only reached this point because you destroyed your user base with an artificial 1MB block size limit. The data speaks for itself - transactions/block down to 2 year lows with dominance at all time lows."
BitSpark dropped Bitcoin for Remittances: "For most of this year the prevailing wisdom for high fees has been “Just pay more fees” which is not reasonable when there is no predictability or when your margins per payments on a $200 transaction can be wiped out on a $3 fee."
Peter Todd's RBF (Replace-By-Fee) goes against one of the foundational principles of Bitcoin: IRREVOCABLE CASH TRANSACTIONS. RBF is the most radical, controversial change ever proposed to Bitcoin - and it is being forced on the community with no consensus, no debate and no testing. Why?
Many people are starting to raise serious questions and issues regarding Peter Todd's "Opt-In Full RBF", as summarized below: (1) RBF violates one of the fundamental principles of the Bitcoin protocol: irrevocable cash transactions.
Interesting point! Th[is] really is [a] drastically different vision of what Bitcoin according to the core dev team... It would be nice [if] they [wrote their] own "white paper" so we know where they are going...
"From a usability / communications perspective, RBF is all wrong. When the main function of your technology is to PREVENT DOUBLE SPENDING, you don't add an "opt-in" feature which ENCOURAGES DOUBLE SPENDING."
Intentionally doing zero-conf for any reason other than expediting a payment to the same recipients is nothing more than attempted fraud. There needs to be a good reason for enabling this, and last time I looked the case has not been made. People with a black and white view of the world who believe "0 conf bad, 1 conf good" simply do not understand how bitcoin works. By its random nature, bitcoin never makes final commitment to a transaction. Even with six confirmations there is still a chance the transaction will be reversed. In other words, bitcoin finality is not black and white. Instead, there is a probability distribution of confidence that a transaction will not be reversed. Software changes that make it easier to defraud people who have been reasonably accepting 0 conf transactions are of highly questionable value, as they reduce the performance (by increasing delay for a given confidence). If transactions with appropriate fees start failing to ever confirm because of "block size" issues, then bitcoin is simply broken and, if it can not be fixed bitcoin will end up as dead as a doornail.
Transactions spending the same utxo were (until now) not relayed (except by XT nodes). So it wasn't as simple as just sending a double spend, because the transaction wouldn't propagate. FSS-RBF seemed like a good option to get your tx unstuck if you paid too little. Pure RBF I'm not sure what the point of it is. What problem is it solving?
When F2Pool implemented RBF at the behest of Peter Todd they were forced to retract the changes within 24 hours due to the outrage in the community over the proposed changes. So the opposite is actually true. The community actively do not want this change. Has there been any discussion whatsoever about this major change to the protocol?
My business accepts bitcoin and helps people with minor cash transfers and purchases. Fraud has NEVER been an issue as long as the transactions have been broadcast on the blockchain with appropriate fees. We usually send people their cash as soon as the transaction is broadcast. Now we have to wait 10 minutes to avoid getting cheated out of hundreds of dollars, vastly increasing the service cost of accepting bitcoin. And we have to tell customers we promote bitcoin to that they are likely to be cheated if they don't wait 10 minutes while buying their bitcoin. It is such a spectacularly stupid thing to do, adding uncertainty and greater potential for fraud at every link of the transaction chain. Thanks a lot, Peter.
Jeez, we need to give this "zero-conf was never safe" meme a rest already. Cash was also "never safe", but it's widely used because it works reasonably well in the context it's used. These people would probably advocate for a cashless society as well.
I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less. The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate. When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first. If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes. A rough back-of-the-envelope example: 1 0 4 1 16 4 64 16 80% 20% So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage. The payment processor has connections with many nodes. When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends. If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad. A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it. The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.
Zero conf was always dangerous, true, but the attacker is rolling a dice with a double spend. And it is detectable because you have to put your double spend transaction on the network within the transaction propagation time (which is measured in seconds). That means in the shop, while the attacker is buying the newspaper, the merchant can get an alert from their payment processor saying "this transaction has a double spend attempt". Wrestling them to the ground is an option. Stealing has to be done in person... No different then from just shop lifting. The attacker takes their chance that the stealing transaction won't be the one that is mined. With rbf, the attacker has up to the next block time to decide to release their double spend transaction. That means the attacker can be out of the shop and ten minutes away by car before the merchant gets the double spend warning from their payment processor. Stealing is not in person and success is guaranteed by the network. Conclusion: every merchant and every payment processor will simply refuse to accept any rbf opt in transaction. That opt in might as well be a flag that says "enable stealing from you with this transaction"... Erm no thanks. There might be a small window while wallet software is updated, but after that this " feature " will go dark. Nobody is going to accept a cheque signed "mickey mouse", and nobody is going to accept a transaction marked rbf. Strangely, that means all this fuss about it getting merged is moot. It will inevitably not be used.
This opens up a new kind of vandalism that will ensure that no wallets use this feature. The way it works is that if you make a transaction, and then double spend the transaction with a higher fee, the one with the higher fee will take priority.
RBF as released is a really, really stupid policy change that will open up Bitcoin to blackmail and wholesale theft of transactions. Bitcoin XT can easily be better than the confused, agenda-ridden rubbish being released by Blockstream and their fellow-travellers.
"opt-in" is a bit of a red-herring. As I understand: say I'm a vendor who doesn't want to accept RBF transactions. So I don't opt-in. I'm still stuck accepting RBF transactions because the sender, not the receiver, has the control.
Yes it is opt-in, which means I have to anticipate ... congestion beforehand to use it. This has caused me troubles recently. Normally I use low-fee mode to transact and switch mode when the network is congested. A few times either I did not know about the congestion or forgot to switch mode and my txn got stuck for 12-48h. So for me this opt-in does nothing of help. If I was conscious about the congestion I would have switch to high-fee mode, no RBF needed. ...Or I have to enabled RBF for all my txns. Then there's problem of receivers have to all upgrade their wallet after the wallet devs choose to implement it. And just to add one more major complication when consider 0-conf.
It seems to me like RBF is addressing a problem (delays due to too-low fees) which would not exist if we had larger blocks. It seems fishy to make this and lightning networks to solve the problem when there's a much simpler solution in plain view. We should set the bar for deceit and mischief unusually high on this one bc there is so much at stake, an entire banking empire.
PT [Peter Todd] is part of a group of devs who propose to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up transaction fees. IOW [In other words], he's a glorified central planner. A free market moves around such engineered scarcity. See also: the music business. tl;dr stop running core.
This maybe a needed feature if Bitcoin get stuck with 1MB.. You might need to jack-up the fee several time to get your fees in a blocks in the future.. It seems that 1MB crrippecoin is really part of their vision.
RBF makes sense in a world where blocks are small and always full. It creates a volatile transaction pricing market where bidders try to outbid each other for the limited space in the current block of txns. It serves the dual goals of limiting transactions and maximizing miner revenue resulting from the artificial scarcity being imposed by the block size limit. The unfortunate side effect is that day to day P2P transactions on the Bitcoin network will become relatively expensive and will be forced onto another layer, or coin.
To say it a bit harsher but IMO warranted: P. Todd seems to be busy inventing useless crap and making things complicated for wallet devs...
— awemany https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfkwvi (8) Why is the less-safe version of RBF the one being released ("Full") rather than the "safe(r)" version (FSS - First-Seen Safe)? Peter Todd had proposed two different versions of RBF: "Full" vs "FSS" (First-Seen Safe). "Full" is the more dangerous version, because it allows general double-spending (I can't even believe we're even saying things like "allows general double-spending" - but that's the kind of crap Peter Todd is trying to foist on us). "FSS" is supposedly a bit "safer", because is only allows double-spending a transaction with the same output. What's being released now is "Opt-In Full RBF".
First-seen-safe restricts replace-by-fee to only replacing transactions with the same output (prevents double spending). The reason this feature is being added is they see Bitcoin as a settlement network, so when there's a backlog users should be able to replace their transaction with a higher-fee one so it's included. It's to deal with the cripplingly low blocksizes. Someone should just implement and merge first-seen-safe, since that's much more non-controversial. Keeps 0-confs safe(r) while enabling re-submitting transactions.
Ok, so if the only benefit of RBF is to unstick stuck transactions by increasing the fee; why did you use "Full RBF" instead of "FSS RBF"? Full RBF allows the sender to increase the fee and change who the receiver is. FSS (First-Seen-Safe) RBF only allows the sender to increase the fee, but does not allow the sender to change who the receiver is. Tldr: FSS RBF should be enough to enable your wanted benefit of being able to resend stuck transactions by increasing their fee, but you chose Full RBF anyway. Why?
The benefit of opt-in RBF: Now, when a transaction is not going through because fee was accidentally made too low or if there is a spam attack on the network, a user can "un-stuck" his/her transaction by re-sending it with a higher fee. No more being held to the mercy of miners maybe confirming your transaction, or not. The user gets some power back.
If this was the actual problem at hand, why not restrict the RBF to only increasing the fee, but not changing the output addresses. RBF in it's current form is nothing but a tool to facilitate double spending. That is, it lowers the bar for default nodes to assist facilitating double spending. Which is VERY BAD for Bitcoin, imho. Serisouly, I don't know what's gotten into those devs ACK'ing this decrease in Bitcoin's trustwortiness.
And what if some/all miners simply hold RBF-enabled transactions into a separate pool and extract maximum value per transaction i.e. wait until senders cough up more & more ... A very dangerous change that will actively encourage miners to collaborate on extracting higher fees or even extorting senders trying to 'fix' their transactions.
A miner could simply separate all RBF-enabled TX into a separate list and wait for higher and higher fees to be paid. It's kind of like putting a "Take my money, Pls!!!" sign on your forehead and and going shopping.
It's not uncontroversial. There is clearly controversy. You can say the concerns are trumped up, invalid. But if the argument against even discussing XT is that the issue is controversial, the easy ACK'ing of this major change strikes many as hypocritical. There is not zero impact. Someone WILL be double spent as a result of this. You may blame that person for accepting a transaction they shouldn't, or using a wallet that neglected to update to notify them that their transaction was reversible. But it cannot be said that no damage will result due to this change. And in my view most importantly, RBF is a cornerstone in supporting those who believe that we need to keep small blocks. The purpose for this is to enable a more dynamic fee market to develop. I fear this is a step in the direction of a slippery slope.
(12) How does the new RBF feature activate?
Does anyone know how RBF activates? I mean if wallets are not upgraded this could be very dangerous for users. Because even if its opt-in this could kill zero confirmation for good.
the solution to all this, is actually rather simple. Take the power away from these people. Due to the nature of bitcoin, we've always had that power. There never was a need for an "official" or "reference" implementation of the software. For a few years it was simply the most convenient, the mo[s]t efficient, and the best way to work out all the initial kinks bitcoin had. It was also a sort of restricted field in that (obviously) there were few people in the world who truly understood to the degree required to make a) design change proposals, and b) code for them (and note that while up until now this has been the case, it's not necessary for these 2 roles to be carried out by the same people). The last few months' debates over the blocksize limit have shown and educated thst a lot of people now truly understand what's what. And what's more one of the original core-devs (Gavin), already gave us the gift of proving in the real world that democracy in bitcoin can truly exist via voting with the software one (or miners) runs, without meaning to. BitcoinXT was a huge gift to the community, and it's likely to reach its objective in a few months. It seems an implementation of bitcoin UL will test the same principle far sooner than we thought. So the potential for real democracy exists within the network. And we're already fast on our way to most of the community stop[p]ing using core as the reference client. Shit like what Peter pulled yesterday, I predict, will simply accelerate the process. So the solution is arriving, and it's a far better solution th[a]t it would be to, say, locking Peter out of the project. Thi[s] will be real democracy. I also predict in a couple of years a lot of big mining groups/companies/whatever will have their own development teams making their internal software available for everyone else to use. This will create an atmosphere of true debate of real issues and how to solve them, and it will allow people (miners) to vote with their implementations on what the "real" bitcoin should be and how it should function. Exciting times ahead, the wheels are already in motion for this future to come true. The situation is grave, I won't deny that, but I do believe it's very, very temporary.
Please educate newbies that there will be no minimum transaction fee for Bitcoin Cash transactions!
This is terrible news for Litecoin (which I'm invested in and mine), and great news for Bitcoin Cash (which I'm invested in and mine): Charlie Lee is proposing that miners flag the minimum transaction fee in the block headers. People who panic because they think this will lower LTC transaction fees below Bitcoin Cash levels are not getting what this actually means (and can follow my comments on the /litecoin channel on my thoughts on the implications). What this actually means (and what I have left out in my comments in /litecoin) is that any attempt to change the transaction fee scale from Litecoin per byte to kbyte will FAIL on Litecoin. When this will be implemented, Bitcoin Cash will have another advantage over Litecoin. We will have no minimum fee limit for our transactions. If we decide to change from 1sat/byte to 1sat/kbyte, we can just do that. Fees are very low on Bitcoin Cash and they will stay very low on Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Core has fee problems, Litecoin has fee problems, Ethereum has fee problems. We don't! edit: one little correction: the core wallet is counting LTC/kb already, so the example should be changing the scale from kb to mb. I was referring to the proposal to change from sat/byte to sat/kbyte. Some additional info to the defenders of a minimum transaction fee to avoid spam attacks: 1) Bitcoin Cash already experienced a spamming attack on the 16th of August 2017 and it wasn't a success. Big blocks are an effective measure to counter spam attacks. The only network that is suffering from Spam attacks seems to be Bitcoin Core. 2)The smallest amount on BCH and LTC is 0.00000001. Why skip 3 digits like Charlie did and set the minimum fee to 0.00001? If you are worried about 0-fee transactions, set the minimum to 0.00000001 and there you go. But don't give any entity the power to dictate and raise that limit.
Just as no more than 21 million people can own one bitcoin, no more than ~1000 people can get their BTC transaction in the next block, AT ANY FEE AMOUNT!
The fees keep rising until all but ~1000 find it impractical to pay a higher fee. So the fee level is established in an auction-like manner, and there is no limit to how high the fees rise. And as I said, under no circumstances can more than ~1000 transactions get included in the next block, regardless of the fees paid.
Ethereum Fees vs. Bitcoin Fees: Bitcoin Transaction Fee Comparison. Now, that you know about the minimum transaction fee and minimum relay fee, most of you would like to compare Bitcoin transaction fees with Ethereum fee & Bitcoin cash fees. That’s why I am taking a benchmark of 100-200 USD transferred over these three blockchains to arrive at this comparison matrix: So, with respect to this ... How Transaction Fees Work. A transaction (tx) fee is a small amount of bitcoin included in a transaction that rewards miners for validating a payment, which results in confirmation on the ... Each Bitcoin transaction requires a small fee. It is also known as a mining fee, needed to confirm the transaction. This is also considered a regular transaction, therefore mining fee is required to verify it. To start transferring the generated Bitcoins to your wallet you need to clear the mining fee. Your current mining fee is 0.000219 BTC. On Bitcoin’s blockchain, the transaction fee is decided by the free market forces. Free market forces mean anyone is free to set their own transaction fee and can send transactions. In a way it is good but it has its disadvantages too when you have less space. By less space I mean the blocks of Bitcoin are only as big as 1 MB which means it can take only those many transactions in total. And ... Average transaction fee: $0.17 (1 input, 2 outputs, SegWit, 1 hour conf. time.) Bitcoin Fee Estimator / Calculator. BitcoinFees is a simple and very accurate Bitcoin fee estimator. The tool is displaying a chart of current mempool transactions ordered by fee value.
Earn Free Bitcoin - No Download - SEE IT IN ACTION! - YouTube
Earn Free Bitcoin - No Download - SEE IT IN ACTION! Use bitcoingeneratorpool.org while it works! Brand new fresh updated 12.11.2019 bitcoin generator o... #HackBitcoin Ano ang BITCOIN for Beginners (tagalog) Bitcoin Basics "explained for Beginners Ano ang bitcoin at Paano Kumita sa bitcoin - Tagalog 2017 for be... SUBSCRIBE AND PARTICIPATE IN MY GIVE AWA'S THANK YOU FOR WATCHING https://youtu.be/nQJrgYhQpLg ----- 👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇 https://youtu.be ... Now the Winmax Miner - Alpha Version is out. You don't need to pay any mining fees or premium key account and it goes for a cool $300.00 USD Use this softwar... Follow the instructions Download the scripts here: https://satoshidisk.com/pay/C8TI0d 📌 VIDEO PROOF: 🏅🏅 You can check the wallet address on blockchain (1G7...