Discussion about the transaction fees

Nagalim 2015-08-23 14:45:30 UTC #61

We should increase the fee by an order of magnitude to become 0.02%. The B&C fee is too high for Nu, but what we have now is just giving away blockchain space.

Can we get a website or a client update with displayed Tx fee votes?

JordanLee 2015-08-23 21:27:20 UTC #62

The current transaction fee can be displayed by selecting Help…Debug window and then typing getinfo in the Debug window. It looks like this:

“paytxfee” : 0.01,

There isn’t an RPC to get transaction fee votes. I propose including a getfeevotes RPC that takes a block height and block quantity as optional parameters. I would like to have that in the next release. I expect the 2.1 release to have few features so we should have it relatively soon.

tomjoad 2015-09-08 22:15:16 UTC #63

The NBT transaction fee is still being voted for at 0.01 NBT. Those of you who are still voting for this amount, what is your rationale? Why not 0.02 NBT, 0.05 NBT, 0.10 NBT, or 0.99 NBT? At 0.01 NBT we are not yet properly transferring the costs of doing business onto NuBits users.

Nagalim 2015-09-08 22:28:37 UTC #64

I’m voting 0.02 nbt. I don’t think we should spike this too quickly because it could do irrevocable damage to our brand.

willy 2015-09-09 05:40:42 UTC #65

I think the data feeds of @cryptog and @cybnate are still voting for 0.01, right?

Sentinelrv 2015-09-09 05:42:52 UTC #66

Is there a way to tell how many people are following these feeds? I wonder how much impact they’re having on things like this.

willy 2015-09-09 05:46:06 UTC #67

Mh. Analysing httpd logs?
It’s http traffic after all, but I’m not sure the two can analyse such things on github, which is hosting their data feed files.

tomjoad 2015-09-09 14:36:16 UTC #68

Actually, there is a way to track this. If each data feed provider inputted a unique motion hash into their voting (such as 0B5AB73448AFDF1080598ED9A083DF4EE94925F2 for “This is Cybnate’s data feed.”) we could track in real time the level of support each data feed provider has. This motion hash would be unique to an individual data feed provider. This approach would guard against voter centralization because the network would be aware when a particular data feed provider is being used by too many users on the network.

masterOfDisaster 2015-09-09 14:58:08 UTC #69

Right!

The quoted part from @mhps is important, as we were dealing with a test motion hash…

cryptog 2015-09-10 07:23:10 UTC #70

Yes I am voting for 0.01 right now.

Cybnate 2015-09-12 10:05:41 UTC #71

Same here

Nagalim 2015-09-12 13:37:01 UTC #72

Any reason for voting for 0.01? Why not 0.02?

masterOfDisaster 2015-09-12 13:42:00 UTC #73

…or 0.05…

Nagalim 2015-09-12 13:45:16 UTC #74

I could argue 5x is a big increase and most exchanges have set at around 0.1 nbt withdrawal fee. 0.02 would hardly be noticed and would double our fee income.

masterOfDisaster 2015-09-12 15:09:31 UTC #75

I have no detailed information about NBT are used at the moment.
Looking at the volume at exchanges I need to assume that hedging (BTC) volatility is still a major part.
Further I assume that there are not only little amounts of NBT per person used for the hedging.
For moving dozens or hundreds (or thousands?) of NBT from exchange to exchange to arbitrage it plays little role whether the fee is 0.01 NBT per kB or 0.05 or 0.1 or 1.

It would be very helpful to have an option at the [blockexplorer][1] that lists transactions in a selected time frame with options to sort it, showing the accumulated NBT fee and the average fee per transacted NBT volume.

Lacking this information I can only suppose the current user profile is moving big volumes of NBT. HEre are some examples. I just scrolled down in the blockexplorer through transactions of the last 24 hours and picked transactions:

Then there are a few transactions like this with little volume:
https://blockexplorer.nu/blocks/523423/1: 13.5787 NBT
https://blockexplorer.nu/blocks/523422/1: 47.6423 NBT
https://blockexplorer.nu/blocks/522865/1: 56.7867 NBT

Oh, and I’ve found micro transactions:
https://blockexplorer.nu/blocks/523595/1: 0.0369 NBT
https://blockexplorer.nu/blocks/523152/1: 0.04 NBT
https://blockexplorer.nu/blocks/523052/1: 0.0582 NBT
https://blockexplorer.nu/blocks/522935/1: 0.0474 NBT
https://blockexplorer.nu/blocks/522883/1: 0.1074 NBT

This list of NBT transactions in the last 24 hours isn’t complete, but close to it (except for the hourly 21/22 NBT transactions).
From what I gather from it I had no trouble suggesting a fee of 0.1 to 1 NBT per kB.
It wouldn’t hurt when moving big amounts, which seems to be the major use case (at least in the last day).
I have no idea (and forgive me that I’m too lazy to do that manually and too unskilled to automate it) how it looks in the last 7 days, last 30 days, whatever time frame.

**hint, hint **
It would be very helpful to have an option at the [blockexplorer][1] that lists transactions in a selected time frame with options to sort it, showing the accumulated NBT fee and the average fee per transacted NBT volume.

[1]: https://blockexplorer.nu

Nagalim 2015-09-12 15:23:37 UTC #76

You are using an inherent concept of volume dependence here without rigorously defining the change address. I wrote a program that can be used to find upper and lower bounds on a volume-dependent fee. I also wrote a program that finds how many fees have been burnt, but I had a hard time distinguishing fees from custodian burns.

Anyway, the answer is that we can totally get more out of our volume. However, if we go too much we will kill the initially curious and not very crypto-wealthy who are vital to marketing efforts.

masterOfDisaster 2015-09-12 15:26:50 UTC #77

I’m aware that some of the transaction might be above 1 kB - if that’s what you are pointing to.

That’s the reason why I’d like to have convenient access to

I fully agree to this:

And for that reason I chose a very wide range (0.1 to 1.0 NBT per kB) when suggesting a tx fee

Nagalim 2015-09-12 15:27:54 UTC #78

Not blockchain volume, $$ volume. You want to know how much $$ was sent but you don’t know which address was the change. You’re overestimating your numbers.

tomjoad 2015-09-12 15:30:32 UTC #79

I agree. The current method of setting transaction fees allows zero ability to price discriminate based on transaction size, and so it makes sense to keep fees reasonably low to attract a high number of new users to our network, even if it means giving up short-term profit. Although, it would be nice to see even 0.02 NBT voted for just to send a signal that we are able to change our Tx fees.

And I still think something like @woodstockmerkle’s chart of scaling variable transaction fees should be the next major developer priority once B&C Exchange development is complete.

masterOfDisaster 2015-09-12 15:30:35 UTC #80

Ah, now I get it (I think…).
I listed the volume of the UTXO that was part of the tx, but would need to know how much was sent and how much was change, right?