[Approved, sort of] Require A Minimum Sat Fee

I know this will probably be denied, but I have been seeing a lot lately of people making reports due to their payments not confirming and taking a very long time. I don't know the extent of how this can be manipulated and used to a scammers advantage but I feel like if someone is looking to scam quit, they can have all these transactions with the lowest of the low fee and target as many people as possible while these transactions are "confirming", eventually leading to these transactions not going through.

I am suggesting that Sythe require a minimum Sat fee for crypto transactions so people aren't waiting a week or more for their payment and people can't take advantage of this when scoping out as many people as possible to scam quit with. I am not sure what that minimum fee should be and will leave that to staff to decide.

I totally understand if people disagree with this and it gets denied. I am only making this suggestion as a paper trail post so that if this does become an issue, we have something to refer to as it being mentioned before.

Thanks.

 

No support for a specific sats/byte required as a minimum fee; however I do think you are onto something with some rule implementation for btc sending.

The problem with a minimum fee is that sometimes the average sats/byte is 20 and sometimes it's 200 all dependong on network activity, so a static requirement would never work. Plus people who are more knowledgeable about the blockchain may be okay with making certain agreements within their trades about the sending fee. I believe a problem occurs when traders who don't understand the blockchain well get into trades with people who them jew them with super low fee's and they don't know it. Jacky jews me with fee's every send but I know he is and I don't mind, It's another thing when someone is expecting the money to arrive imminently and it doesn't.

I think maybe implement a rule where we base time estimations for confirmations off one specific source and then make it required for traders to discuss or mention how long, within a range, the btc send is estimated to confirm in before sending it to another person. This will bring the sending time/fee's to the attention of both traders so they can then work out an agreement for one party covering a higher fee, or being prepared to wait for the money for a lower fee, etc. This would leave the control in the hands of individuals but makes the sending process more transparent for non crypto versed traders.

 

We've been having discussions on this very topic already. Stay tuned.

 

[Superfluous]

If people agree to trade with dum-dum 1 sat/b fees, that's their prerogative. I don't see us requiring a minimum fee for the usual "it's a free market"-type reasons.

However, I do think we need to provide more guidance on this, and a sticky explaining the topic in detail is likely coming to a forum near you sometime soon.

 

No support for a specific sats/byte required as a minimum fee; however I do think you are onto something with some rule implementation for btc sending.

ya and i also don't suport people giving their opinion on a topic they're clueless about, but oh well for some reason you're allowed.

rule can be based on mb/s from mempool tip.

and sats isnt the issue, sat w/u is what determines the time to conf, thats why i called you clueless.

also i dont think people understand how easy it is to double spend their txs, especially with rbf. rbf should just be banned overall. no legit gold trader is using a coin tumbling wallet with rbf, makes no fucking sense.

 

We should require this only above a certain threshold amount. Because i'll never pay a priority fee if it's more than 2% of my sending amount.

 

@Devil Chris Kane recently brought up a good example of a transaction that your suggestion should take into consideration.
If I receive a transaction sent with a low fee and I forward that transaction (unconfirmed parent) with a sythe required fee, I'll still need to wait for the parent transaction to confirm.
Yes, there are scenarios like "child pays for parent", but that's not important right now.
Also, if the minimum required fee is an absolute number, we'll have to adjust that number depending on how saturated the mempool is.

 

While i dont believe there should be a "minimum sat/b fee" - i believe there should be a rule that you must notify your customer if you are going to be sending below the recommended, so they have the option of covering half the fee etc OR declining the trade.

Its unfair on the customer to be lured into trading with a specific trader due to a certain price, then they must wait a week for payment where the price of bitcoin may fall before they get a chance to sell.

 

If people agree to trade with dum-dum 1 sat/b fees, that's their prerogative. I don't see us requiring a minimum fee for the usual "it's a free market"-type reasons.

However, I do think we need to provide more guidance on this, and a sticky explaining the topic in detail is likely coming to a forum near you sometime soon.

The problem is, people are unaware most of the time they're agreeing to a 1 sat/b trade, only the price of the sale is agreed and once the payment is sent with a low fee the complaints come later.

 

[Superfluous]

i believe there should be a rule that you must notify your customer

Its unfair on the customer to be lured into trading with a specific trader due to a certain price, then they must wait a week for payment where the price of bitcoin may fall before they get a chance to sell.

I agree - we'll cover this in the sticky, and my feeling is that sellers should notify their customers of fees beforehand and separately from quoted rates.

 

I agree - we'll cover this in the sticky, and my feeling is that sellers should notify their customers of fees beforehand and separately from quoted rates.

*should be required to

 

*should be required to

In all scenarios? What if I send a transaction with a priority fee and someone reports me that I didn't mention the fee beforehand? It sounds retarded, but people on the internet like to troll and like to get rid of their competition in any possible way.
Obviously no sane staff member would issue a TWC, if I covered the fee myself, but technically I would be breaking the rule.

 

TBH,

I agree in a way because atm even sending $20 payments is costing $11+ on the basic sats... but making someone wait a week for a payment is kind of bs too.

It may just be time to start looking at other payment methods when its not worth paying the regular sat fees.

Yellow HAt

 

some wallets, you can't set a fee, keep that in mind.

 

In all scenarios? What if I send a transaction with a priority fee and someone reports me that I didn't mention the fee beforehand? It sounds retarded, but people on the internet like to troll and like to get rid of their competition in any possible way.
Obviously no sane staff member would issue a TWC, if I covered the fee myself, but technically I would be breaking the rule.

Logically speaking, the scenario you laid out would most likely be one of those 1/1,000 occurrences. If someone reported a user as a troll, in that instance, the reported user would just post proof that they sent as a priority fee and staff would handle it on a case-by-case basis. For the other 999/1000 transactions, I think implementing a requirement to notify makes sense.
However, the biggest issue/caveat though, as ABM mentioned, is that not all wallets allow users to set their own fees.

This is a tough topic of which a clear cut solution is going to be challenging.

 

[Gladiator]

In all scenarios? What if I send a transaction with a priority fee and someone reports me that I didn't mention the fee beforehand? It sounds retarded, but people on the internet like to troll and like to get rid of their competition in any possible way.
Obviously no sane staff member would issue a TWC, if I covered the fee myself, but technically I would be breaking the rule.

I think they should notify their customers ONLY if they're sending below regular fees (on blockchain) as @Dieze said.

some wallets, you can't set a fee, keep that in mind.

These wallets (coinbase, LBC, etc)'s default/fixed fee is always above average sat/b. All of the current reports regarding low fees are to do with blockchain wallets where the seller has manually adjusted to below regular fees

 

[Mootrucks]

No support, free market.

 

No support, free market.

tbh in that case, people should be allowed to send e-cheques on paypal without issue tbh - waiting 7 days for payment can become the norm sadly with fees as they are.

At least with paypal echeques at the end of the week you'll still have the same amount of dollars agreed upon!

 

[Mootrucks]

tbh in that case, people should be allowed to send e-cheques on paypal without issue tbh - waiting 7 days for payment can become the norm sadly with fees as they are.

At least with paypal echeques at the end of the week you'll still have the same amount of dollars agreed upon!

Wouldn't say that's the same thing, paypal payments only become e checks if sent via bank and can be cancelled anytime unlike bitcoin transactions. People can agree on a minimum bitcoin fee among themselves they don't need staff to tell them a minimum, if I use coinbase and for some reason it's not above the minimum staff set they can suck my balls cause I can't even edit fee.

 

Wouldn't say that's the same thing, paypal payments only become e checks if sent via bank and can be cancelled anytime unlike bitcoin transactions. People can agree on a minimum bitcoin fee among themselves they don't need staff to tell them a minimum, if I use coinbase and for some reason it's not above the minimum staff set they can suck my balls cause I can't even edit fee.

any bitcoin transaction that isn’t confirmed can be reversed if the wallet allows you to send the transaction using unconfirmed inputs. So it’s sorta similar to be fair

staff don’t need to tell the minimum, but a rule whereby you inform your customer if your sending below the recommended isn’t unreasonable.