Your suggestion comes out to be something that makes sense but can it happen realistically, No. The miners can never consent to such arrangement after what they pass through in order to set up a mining tool. They will only give priority to transactions with high fees and the ones with lower fees are left hanging on there forever. The consensus on how it works now is actually favouring everyone and the high transaction fees period don’t always last very long that your transaction will remain hanging their forever without being picked. Your suggestion is fine but it can’t be realistic.

why would a bitcoin miner send fees back to someone? if they could do it under my system then they could do it right now. so i'm not convinced that miner collusion would be an issue. how many bitcoin users sending bitcoin are in touch with a bitcoin miner and have a way to convince them to refund their transaction fee? even if they did refund it, the miner lost out on that revenue. a miner is free to use their revenue however they like. if they wanted to they could refund all the transaction fees and even distribute their block reward back to all the transactions in the block. in practice that never happens.

what bitcoin miners do with the transaction fees they collect is up to them. but you can certainly enforce a fee structure onto bitcoin transactions. and make it part of the consensus rules. which nodes would then follow. and any blocks would be checked to make sure each transaction adhered to the fee policy otherwise it is an invalid block.


well below a certain number of satoshis, it is infeasible to send that amount of bitcoin no matter what fee structure you are using. even someone right now trying to send just $10 which is about 17,000 satoshis is going to pay $2 or $3 transaction fee. 20% or 30%. even under my system of something like a 1% fee, they will probably never get their transaction put into a block because the fee is just too low.

to send $10,000 using a bankwire could cost close to $100 when all is said and done. The sender has to pay maybe $25. Receiver bank charges the receiver say $15. There could be an intermediary bank or two who charge $15 or $20. Is it really that much cheaper? Plus, you have to KYC and maybe have a report filled out on you. To me, paying $100 to send $10,000 using bitcoin is not unreasonable. Just like paying $1 to send $100 is not unreasonable.

The 1% was just thrown out there. I have no idea what the best percentage would be although 0.1% seems too low to me.


Think of it like paying taxes. Generally speaking, taxes are based on a percentage of someone's total income. All forms of taxes are a percentage of a value of something. People with more pay more. That's a fundamentally sound principle. What I think might be a bit unfair is how people in higher tax brackets are taxed at a higher percentage. But that's a debate for another day maybe.

Someone else mentioned how people with "small" transactions might feel the pinch and yes that's true but bitcoin is not necessarily for the small guy anymore. They just to learn to adapt and arrange their transactions in the most efficient ways. Or use something else. Even right now, I'm not sure bitcoin is really so feasible for sending under $100 worth of value. In the future expect that to be $1000 or maybe more. We can't really control that though. All we can control is a minimum fee.

Maybe this thread belongs in the mining section because I'm sure bitcoin miners would certainly be in favor of higher fees and thus my proposal!  

What does coinbase charge to sell or buy bitcoin? 0.3%. people don't complain about that. They shouldn't be complaining about a 1% transaction fee on the blockchain either. In my opinion.

You have two options:

1. Reject some transaction, because it doesn't meet your consensus-enforced fee policy.
2. Accept some transaction, make some artificial traffic, and get a fair, market-based fee.

In the first case, a miner can get zero reward. In the second case, a miner can get "at least something", and set it up in a trustless way, so it will be safe for both parties.

Of course, miners can change their node settings to accept only "1000 sat/vb or above". But for some reason, they don't. And there are some nodes, which set it to "0 sat/vb" as a minimum, just to see more traffic.

Also note, that behind some free transactions, there are sometimes transactions with tasty fees. For example: if miners would accept free transactions, then Garlo Nicon wouldn't send 9950 tBTC to himself (because it was behind a free transaction, and the first transaction hit the minimal fee limit, but the second one hit the maximum). If nodes would accept free transactions, then they would receive both, and someone else could mine it faster than him.

So, if your fee policy would be bad, then you would just see doubled transactions: one to meet your rules, and another to adjust it to the free market. Because it is more profitable for a miner to include both, than to include none of them.

No. Above some reasonable amount, people will run away to another payment systems: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/security-budget/#updates

Then, if you go above this "$10 border", people will use something else:



They don't have to. In the latest changes, you have something called "a package", where you can send more than one transaction, and compute things on the whole package, instead of referring to a single transaction. Also, you can write it in a way, where both or none will be included, and then it will be trustless.

Yeah, it's not 2000 anymore!
I can send an instant confirmation ware everywhere in my country no matter the bank and pay nothing for it, my wife who doesn't get her wage in the same account pays 50 eurocents per transfer outside our banks and her family accounts.
It costs me 7 euros to send 5000 to Colombia for instant cash pick-up...so, again, this is not 2000 anymore.

Also, you're forgetting a thing, it's 1% when I send it, then 1% when the guy who receives the money uses it! God forbid he would move those coins through cold storage first cause it would mean again 1%a and 1%. 


It's more than enough, assuming enough volume.
Current fees are 18.79 BTC, Sent last 24h   258,176 BTC.
I know sent is not actually calculated as it should be (change not removed) on that chart but still, enough!

Unfortunately space is limited on Bitcoin blockchain and in blocks. And the mining fees system is mainly related to that limited space in the end. If small transactions in value have fees too low, more spammy or unimportant and parasitic transactions of few cents or couple of dollars will be send by people onto the blockchain instead of using Lightning Network or some altcoins more appropriate for this use case, and it will clutter the blockchain even more in the end. Most merchants accept altcoins now, or at least few of them, so it's maybe better to use them instead of changing Bitcoin IMO.

That is a good motion of you OP, but let us not crave for what may affective us in future if this ideal is being proposal and approved.

The fee might actually be too high and being alarming by little amount of transactions while users on huge amount of Bitcoin transactions are the ones enjoying it.

Something we should consider in that consensus mechanism is .... What if the total Satoshi for the transaction charges is an average charge for specific range or lower amount of transactions specifically and then it is considered an opportunity for those running a huge amount of transaction to be changed the same rate and then considering this agitation of differing the fees,

Now a question to be asked....
What if the current charge of the charge is considered for the lowest amount of transaction and then the transaction mechanism requires additional charges for higher transactions but depending on the amount of the transaction, don't we think we may have more to loose?
Let us be assured that it we individually have been running low amount of transactions all these while, we might also grow higher in the market of running higher transactions too and then, it becomes a backfire to us because the mechanism might probably require to maintain the current Satoshi as the least charge for lower amount and increases the charges for higher transactions so, users would likely to loose on this instead.

The honest truth is that the fee is too high for lower amount of transactions and would be nice if the mechanism could be reviewed and put things in considerations.

I don't follow LN so i don't know much about how its fees work.

From the perspective of an ordinary bitcoin user, they might not be so enthusiastic about paying a transaction fee which is based on the total value of satoshis.

This whole proposal is from the perspective of shoring up miners' income as an offset to the diminishing block rewards which will become insignificant in the years to come. So if they are not open to ideas such as this then I don't know where they think their income is going to come from.