Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
It's not like the network allows you to choose the fee freely.
The app (or rather bitcoinj) already picks the lowest possible fee for you,
while at the same time ensuring speedy confirmation times.
Original comment by andreas....@gmail.com
on 21 Oct 2013 at 10:35
Issue 258 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by andreas....@gmail.com
on 5 Dec 2013 at 8:46
Sorry, I didn't mean to file a duplicate, I didn't see this issue since it is
status invalid.
I disagree, I think this functionality is important. Many pools will accept
zero-fee or lower-than-default fee transactions. Also, sometimes you are
making a large transaction (which is higher-priority by default anyways) or a
very small transaction that you don't care if it is slow.
Finally, the actual cost to the network to process a transaction is born in
fiat currency, so when the value of bitcoins goes up, the fee should go down.
At $1200/BTC, the default fee is 12 cents per transaction. That is way too
much for the micropayment usecase.
I'm not saying change the default, I'm saying let me change the default. Have
a "I know what I'm doing" checkbox first even. Please?
Original comment by theterab...@gmail.com
on 5 Dec 2013 at 10:40
For the floating fee discussion, see the recent thread on the bitcoin-dev
mailing list (and various other discussions there).
Allowing any fee below the minimum creates too much support issues for me,
because if indefinitely delayed transactions and hundreds of users complaining.
Thus, I decided against it. You're welcome to fork your own version of the app
-- it's open source.
Original comment by andreas....@gmail.com
on 5 Dec 2013 at 10:51
Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I suppose that makes sense. If it
becomes a big enough problem for me, maybe I will fork. Hopefully the bitcoin
devs floating fee plans will fix everything.
Also, thanks for this app - it really is superb and I recommend it to people
all the time.
Original comment by theterab...@gmail.com
on 5 Dec 2013 at 10:56
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
chintch...@googlemail.com
on 21 Oct 2013 at 9:52