Create account

102d
CMV
If BCH tx fees were as low as Litecoin's it would be easier for cool services like #MEMBER and #MEMO to turn a profit.
replied 102d
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 102d
they could be lower than 1 sat/b if nodes would relay them.
replied 102d
Sure, and it will happen when there is a need for it. So long as we dont repeat BTC's mistakes.
replied 102d
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 101d
Honestly the people to ask are node software devs. Enable relay support by default.
replied 102d
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 101d
I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Who are you, ABC?
replied 101d
You are, I don't consider the way you described the issue as just an opinion tho.
replied 102d
Come on. Not everyone is a dev. Don't be so dismissive towards users. We want more users.
replied 101d
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 101d
...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 101d
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 101d
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 100d
Well, ok. Sure. But maybe random users don't know that.
replied 100d
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 99d
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 99d
It's still gonna cost 1 sat per byte. That's all matters not the fiat price
replied 97d
Come on, not even you believe that.
replied 97d
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 97d
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 96d
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 99d
If
community
replied 100d
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 100d
I always thought fees are going to Satoshi Nakamoto's Swiss bank account. Isn't it?
replied 100d
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Nicknameul
replied 101d
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 101d
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 101d
| at the same time for homogeneity in the mempool to avoid doublespends.
replied 102d

I am more worried about comparatively low overall fee revenue. Current fate of BAB is a grim reminder that miners can and will kill a low hash coin.
replied 102d
This is because a Litecoin Satoshi is about 1/10th of a BCH Satoshi i USD value.

Both chains have a min. fee of 1 sat/byte.

There has been a proposal for BCH to allow for a certain
replied 101d
https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/T706
Yea, I REALLY like this feature. I hope they're eventually able to do it.
replied 101d
The ABC team have forked off BCH, but Mark Lundeberg who made the proposal works for BCHN now, so there is a good chance, if people ask BCHN nicely :-)
replied 101d
If they do resurrect this,
it should specify _absolutely_
that only OP_RETURN transactions are acceptable for this feature.
Or, perhaps, only the OP_RETURN component is zero-fee.
replied 101d
Nah...you can just put a cap on how many txs pr. block can be 0 sats. That is how it originally in the Satoshi Bitcoin node.
replied 101d
...worked...
replied 101d
You can also make more sofisticated schemes like if a coin has a certain coindays-ago, it should free to move.
replied 101d
This would be ideal. Regular users making occasional purchases should never have to think about fees, blockspace, mempool sizes, etc.
Nicknameul
replied 101d
ABC still runs a BCH node implementation. The node implementation for the IFP chain has indeed forked off, but they haven’t left the BCH space completely.
Nicknameul
replied 101d
Free transactions were awesome... I doubt we’ll be getting these on BCH with the current leadership... Sad, because it would have been a great + for BCH!
replied 102d
| amount of 0 sats/byte txs in a block. Maybe contacting the node devs from BCHN, BU, BCHD etc. and ask if this is something that is still on the table..?
replied 101d
Muling na i-post ang iyong mensahe sa paksang Golden Nugget https://member.cash/p/867ef28bc4
replied 102d
Wat?
replied 102d
3D
replied 102d
I'm pretty sure this is a joke and a funny meme but please correct me if I'm wrong.
replied 102d
What?
replied 102d
are LTC fees really that low? I remember them as being quite similar.
replied 101d
In comparative fiat value only, not in units of the coin itself.