[Approved] RE: Fees must be discussed and agreed upon before a trade

Generally agree with some extra context @Zora :

To me the ideal construction is:

General rule:
Whatever fee parties agree to. Agreeing to a fee can be equivalent to sending party stating the fee and receiving party not disputing this.

Exception to the general rule:
Whenever there is a transaction without an agreement on fees, if the transaction takes longer than X amount of time, sending party is liable for price-fluctuations. Here Video defined X to be two hours. I can find myself in that.

Note:
I think it's important to create discretion for what is understood to be an agreement. So stating a fee and that not being disputed should be enough imo. Otherwise, the sending party will be put in an unfavorable situation because the receiving party will be able to dispute the fee in retrospect, even though he had the chance to do this before the transaction occurred. I think this is important to take into consideration.
It's also important that such an agreement happens before the transaction has started of course.

What to watch out for?
If the sending party immediately sends the BTC and (almost) at the same time notifies the receiving party of the fees, then I would say that the receiving party has not had the chance to dispute the fee.

The measure for staff should really be:
has the receiving party had a proper chance to dispute the fee in the situation where the sending party has notified him?

 

Meh, if someone just sends BTC without talking about fees then it's more than reasonable to expect the BTC within shorter time margins. Not 24 hours. You always assume nothing special is going on when someone doesn't notify something important. 24 hours is just too long of a period, not only because of the volatility of BTC impacting it, but also because someone simply might be expecting the money to pay off a third party.

If you want to avoid the headache and you expect the transaction to take longer than 2 hours, just notify the other party of the fees you're sending. That doesn't seem like something too hard to do

 

If people who inforce these rules don't know about btc then don't use btc.

Enforcing rules over something that's out of the hand traders, there is no scenario in where these new rules favor the traders at any moment

I've never tried to cheap out on payments, 3 weeks ago whatever we did they got stuck, 5$-10$-20$ transaction fee's with over 100sat/byte, everything was stuck for over 3 hours at least.


If you know nothing of btc then don't use it.
Crypto is something you use at your own risk, if customers are new we don't suggest them to use "btc" we suggest to use crypto's such as USDT which are near instant and no fee's and you can get them just as easily as btc.

But no, instead people who know nothing about this are putting in dumb rules.

 

Personally I think the rule in general is little weird to begin with, being liable for price fluctuations after 2 hours of non confirms makes very little sense, If I send someone a payment from coinbase (what I use mainly as they have a low set fee and pool transactions together to keep their fees from being 30-40$ to send $500) I personally see no reason to even mention fees as coinbase will and has always sent their fees as priority and if the sudden increase in volume causes my transaction to take say 6 hours instead of the usual 30 minutes to an hour then I get a customer saying "According to the sythe rules you are responsible to cover the $2.30 cents on lost on bitcoin going down before I got a confirm"

My understanding is this rule should be in place for transactions that take 24-48 hours or more to confirm it seems very weird in such a volatile market where the "regular" fee is changing so often, to force senders to compensate receivers is a little ridiculous.

Sure you can say "JuSt lEt ThEm kNOw thE fEe beFoReHanD" but as someone who actively sends over priority fees through coinbase it seems a little ridiculous that should my WAY ABOVE average fee that I didn't discuss take over 2 hours that I'm responsible to cover the difference in this highly volatile market. Unless I can also say well it took over 6 hours to confirm but the BTC went up 10% so I'd like my $50 back. The rule seems a little weird on the timeline. I fully understand 5 sat fee sends in a 50 sat regular taking 8 days to confirm being liable but as it stands the rule is on the edge of being just dumb.

 

I think if you're using Coinbase/Binance or any reputable exchange where you are not in control of the fee that you should just be able to state "I am sending from this location and the fee is predetermined by them" and as long as you have proof of that I don't think that the rule should apply to you. That should be good enough communication that the exchange will do what is required to have the BTC sent properly.

It's not in your control what fee gets sent from those kinds of addresses.

If you're sending from your own blockchain wallet and determining the fee and if you choose to send an extremely low sat fee and it gets hung up then yes, I think the rule should apply.

 

I'd be fine with this change. The spirit of the new rule is really just encouraging people to talk about fees beforehand. If both parties agree that whatever Coinbase's fee is right now is fine, that's fine by me. Really what we want to see less of is people not discussing fees and then sending tiny fees thereby delaying payment to an excessive degree, and I think this language change reflects that.

 

Approved here: https://www.sythe.org/threads/a-lot-of-updates/