Create account

replied 1783d
Fees are literally as low as they can go. 1 sat/byte without a hard fork. It's like a bacteria and a virus, a big difference I guess, but completely irrelevant on the human scale.
replied 1783d
they could be lower than 1 sat/b if nodes would relay them.
replied 1783d
Sure, and it will happen when there is a need for it. So long as we dont repeat BTC's mistakes.
replied 1783d
How can you say there is no need? Why should we wait for a need to arise? If BCH goes up 10x in price (very likely) fees will be over a penny. This is too high IMO.
replied 1782d
Honestly the people to ask are node software devs. Enable relay support by default.
replied 1783d
So are you willing to write the code or pay for this feature or you are just here bitching about a non issue without contributing anything?
replied 1782d
I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Who are you, ABC?
replied 1782d
You are, I don't consider the way you described the issue as just an opinion tho.
replied 1782d
Come on. Not everyone is a dev. Don't be so dismissive towards users. We want more users.
replied 1782d
There's an attitude in his tone that I don't like. Developers working in BCH are volunteers, they are not getting salary for people to shout at them why things aren't done.
replied 1782d
...and by the way, I will personally chip in again. Anyway, a limited 0 sat/byte tx per. block has been discussed at some point, so it is not a totally unfamiliar issue.
replied 1782d
Ok, fair enough, But it is not entirely true that those devs are not getting paid. The reason for the node Flipstarters was to pay devs for work.
replied 1782d
Paid for a specific roadmap which they are working on. Issues like this should be followed up on technical channels like gitlab or BCHN/BU slack. Otherwise it's just not constructive.
replied 1781d
Well, ok. Sure. But maybe random users don't know that.
replied 1781d
This whole thread doesn't make a sense. BCH obviously has very low fees and still someone is here complaining about fees. I don't think it's a legit concern even for the OP
replied 1780d
Right now, you're right. But if BCH does a 10x price increase it will start to be felt. A 100x price increase and the issue will be very real.
replied 1780d
It's still gonna cost 1 sat per byte. That's all matters not the fiat price
replied 1778d
Come on, not even you believe that.
replied 1777d
I agree it's not sustainable for new users tho, but the problem with BTC is not that fiat price is high, it's that satoshi price is high. If you could pay 1 sat per byte in BTC
replied 1777d
People wouldn't have as much problem with high fees that they have today. It's important to avoid a fee market in the first place.
replied 1777d
BTC's inability to scale means it is just a matter of time before people realize it's crap compared to more modern alternatives. Worst at everything except brand name recognition.
replied 1780d
If
community
replied 1781d
just ask yourself. who exactly is collecting these fees? and where do they go to? and who is regulating the amount needed to be considered as fees paid?
replied 1781d
I always thought fees are going to Satoshi Nakamoto's Swiss bank account. Isn't it?
replied 1781d
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Nicknameul 14Bq5v
replied 1782d
I think somebody wanted to pay the Devs for the work they are doing, but that’s none of my business! Unpaid Devs do mediocre jobs!
replied 1782d
I prefer this solution - miner setting could be changed to sats per kilobyte rather than sats per byte.

Its a relatively small code change, but I think all miners would need to act
replied 1782d
| at the same time for homogeneity in the mempool to avoid doublespends.