Suggestion: allow receivers to pay optional fee for transactions without fees

Suggestion: allow receivers to pay optional fee for transactions without fees
2014-01-17  1:52 ` Ben Davenport
  
From: Dâniel Fraga @ 2014-01-17  1:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

	Someone sent me a very small donation (0.00121 BTC) without
paying fees. I don't know who sent it and I know this type of
transaction are usually rejected by miners. Take a look at it below:

https://imageshack.com/i/ngv5g8j

	Even with the a low probability of confirmation, I
was hoping that after a few days it could be included in a block, but
Blockchain.info simply removed it (I know the sender sent from a
Blockchain.info wallet, because he added a note):

https://blockchain.info/pt/tx/3cde47ee3979a46b36bd61bdb0caf9c11dea58ac99f17fb17b95728766de70e0
	
	As you can see now it shows as "Transaction not found".

	My suggestion is: it would be nice if the receiver could have a
chance to pay the fee when the sender didn't pay any fee. For example,
I could pay a fee of 0.0001 BTC and receive 0.00121 BTC. In the end I'd
have 0.00111 BTC. Better than nothing.

	Would it be technically possible to do that or it would be too
much trouble to change the protocol to allow the receiver to pay an
optional fee?

	Ps: I'm not a programmer, but if the receiver could
optionally "attach" some fee to the transaction, even if he/she didn't
sent the transaction, this could be solved. Bitcoin-qt could even warn
the receiver he received a transaction without fee and if he wants 
faster confirmation he could pay a fee.

	Ps2: if this is a silly suggestion, just ignore it. I tried on
Bitcointalk, but nobody answered.

-- 
Linux 3.12.0: One Giant Leap for Frogkind
http://www.youtube.com/DanielFragaBR
http://mcxnow.com
Bitcoin: 12H6661yoLDUZaYPdah6urZS5WiXwTAUgL





 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-17  1:39 [Bitcoin-development] Suggestion: allow receivers to pay optional fee for transactions without fees Dâniel Fraga

  2014-01-17  2:06   ` Dâniel Fraga
  
From: Ben Davenport @ 2014-01-17  1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dâniel Fraga;  bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2779 bytes --]

You can create a transaction which spends the output to yourself, attaching
a fee to that transaction. In order for miners to grab the transaction fee
on that transaction, they would have to also mine the original transaction.
Likely, you'd have to do this by hand, but software could be written to
simplify doing it. No protocol changes needed.

Ben


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@gmail•com> wrote:

>         Someone sent me a very small donation (0.00121 BTC) without
> paying fees. I don't know who sent it and I know this type of
> transaction are usually rejected by miners. Take a look at it below:
>
> https://imageshack.com/i/ngv5g8j
>
>         Even with the a low probability of confirmation, I
> was hoping that after a few days it could be included in a block, but
> Blockchain.info simply removed it (I know the sender sent from a
> Blockchain.info wallet, because he added a note):
>
>
> https://blockchain.info/pt/tx/3cde47ee3979a46b36bd61bdb0caf9c11dea58ac99f17fb17b95728766de70e0
>
>         As you can see now it shows as "Transaction not found".
>
>         My suggestion is: it would be nice if the receiver could have a
> chance to pay the fee when the sender didn't pay any fee. For example,
> I could pay a fee of 0.0001 BTC and receive 0.00121 BTC. In the end I'd
> have 0.00111 BTC. Better than nothing.
>
>         Would it be technically possible to do that or it would be too
> much trouble to change the protocol to allow the receiver to pay an
> optional fee?
>
>         Ps: I'm not a programmer, but if the receiver could
> optionally "attach" some fee to the transaction, even if he/she didn't
> sent the transaction, this could be solved. Bitcoin-qt could even warn
> the receiver he received a transaction without fee and if he wants
> faster confirmation he could pay a fee.
>
>         Ps2: if this is a silly suggestion, just ignore it. I tried on
> Bitcointalk, but nobody answered.
>
> --
> Linux 3.12.0: One Giant Leap for Frogkind
> http://www.youtube.com/DanielFragaBR
> http://mcxnow.com
> Bitcoin: 12H6661yoLDUZaYPdah6urZS5WiXwTAUgL
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3819 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-17  1:52 ` Ben Davenport

  2014-01-17  2:39     ` Christophe Biocca
  
From: Dâniel Fraga @ 2014-01-17  2:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

	This is good news! Thank you very much Ben for the answer.

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:52:39 -0800
Ben Davenport <bendavenport@gmail•com> wrote:

> You can create a transaction which spends the output to yourself, attaching
> a fee to that transaction. In order for miners to grab the transaction fee
> on that transaction, they would have to also mine the original transaction.
> Likely, you'd have to do this by hand, but software could be written to
> simplify doing it. No protocol changes needed.
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@gmail•com> wrote:
> 
> >         Someone sent me a very small donation (0.00121 BTC) without
> > paying fees. I don't know who sent it and I know this type of
> > transaction are usually rejected by miners. Take a look at it below:
> >
> > https://imageshack.com/i/ngv5g8j
> >
> >         Even with the a low probability of confirmation, I
> > was hoping that after a few days it could be included in a block, but
> > Blockchain.info simply removed it (I know the sender sent from a
> > Blockchain.info wallet, because he added a note):
> >
> >
> > https://blockchain.info/pt/tx/3cde47ee3979a46b36bd61bdb0caf9c11dea58ac99f17fb17b95728766de70e0
> >
> >         As you can see now it shows as "Transaction not found".
> >
> >         My suggestion is: it would be nice if the receiver could have a
> > chance to pay the fee when the sender didn't pay any fee. For example,
> > I could pay a fee of 0.0001 BTC and receive 0.00121 BTC. In the end I'd
> > have 0.00111 BTC. Better than nothing.
> >
> >         Would it be technically possible to do that or it would be too
> > much trouble to change the protocol to allow the receiver to pay an
> > optional fee?
> >
> >         Ps: I'm not a programmer, but if the receiver could
> > optionally "attach" some fee to the transaction, even if he/she didn't
> > sent the transaction, this could be solved. Bitcoin-qt could even warn
> > the receiver he received a transaction without fee and if he wants
> > faster confirmation he could pay a fee.
> >
> >         Ps2: if this is a silly suggestion, just ignore it. I tried on
> > Bitcointalk, but nobody answered.
> >
> > --
> > Linux 3.12.0: One Giant Leap for Frogkind
> > http://www.youtube.com/DanielFragaBR
> > http://mcxnow.com
> > Bitcoin: 12H6661yoLDUZaYPdah6urZS5WiXwTAUgL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> >
> > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> >
> 


-- 
Linux 3.12.0: One Giant Leap for Frogkind
http://www.youtube.com/DanielFragaBR
http://mcxnow.com
Bitcoin: 12H6661yoLDUZaYPdah6urZS5WiXwTAUgL





 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-17  2:06   ` Dâniel Fraga

  2014-01-17  5:40       ` Luke-Jr
  
From: Christophe Biocca @ 2014-01-17  2:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dâniel Fraga;  bitcoin-development

To clarify, there are proposals to make miners recognize this
situation and account for it, only eligius is running it at the moment
IIRC:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8390/are-there-any-pools-or-large-miners-running-child-pays-for-parent-patch
Right now if you were to try it likely wouldn't result in inclusion.
But this is on the radar, and I suspect it'll eventually get merged
into mainline.

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@gmail•com> wrote:
>         This is good news! Thank you very much Ben for the answer.
>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:52:39 -0800
> Ben Davenport <bendavenport@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>> You can create a transaction which spends the output to yourself, attaching
>> a fee to that transaction. In order for miners to grab the transaction fee
>> on that transaction, they would have to also mine the original transaction.
>> Likely, you'd have to do this by hand, but software could be written to
>> simplify doing it. No protocol changes needed.
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>> >         Someone sent me a very small donation (0.00121 BTC) without
>> > paying fees. I don't know who sent it and I know this type of
>> > transaction are usually rejected by miners. Take a look at it below:
>> >
>> > https://imageshack.com/i/ngv5g8j
>> >
>> >         Even with the a low probability of confirmation, I
>> > was hoping that after a few days it could be included in a block, but
>> > Blockchain.info simply removed it (I know the sender sent from a
>> > Blockchain.info wallet, because he added a note):
>> >
>> >
>> > https://blockchain.info/pt/tx/3cde47ee3979a46b36bd61bdb0caf9c11dea58ac99f17fb17b95728766de70e0
>> >
>> >         As you can see now it shows as "Transaction not found".
>> >
>> >         My suggestion is: it would be nice if the receiver could have a
>> > chance to pay the fee when the sender didn't pay any fee. For example,
>> > I could pay a fee of 0.0001 BTC and receive 0.00121 BTC. In the end I'd
>> > have 0.00111 BTC. Better than nothing.
>> >
>> >         Would it be technically possible to do that or it would be too
>> > much trouble to change the protocol to allow the receiver to pay an
>> > optional fee?
>> >
>> >         Ps: I'm not a programmer, but if the receiver could
>> > optionally "attach" some fee to the transaction, even if he/she didn't
>> > sent the transaction, this could be solved. Bitcoin-qt could even warn
>> > the receiver he received a transaction without fee and if he wants
>> > faster confirmation he could pay a fee.
>> >
>> >         Ps2: if this is a silly suggestion, just ignore it. I tried on
>> > Bitcointalk, but nobody answered.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Linux 3.12.0: One Giant Leap for Frogkind
>> > http://www.youtube.com/DanielFragaBR
>> > http://mcxnow.com
>> > Bitcoin: 12H6661yoLDUZaYPdah6urZS5WiXwTAUgL
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>> > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>> > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
>> > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>> >
>> > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Linux 3.12.0: One Giant Leap for Frogkind
> http://www.youtube.com/DanielFragaBR
> http://mcxnow.com
> Bitcoin: 12H6661yoLDUZaYPdah6urZS5WiXwTAUgL
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-01-17  2:39     ` Christophe Biocca

  
From: Luke-Jr @ 2014-01-17  5:40 UTC ( / )
  To: bitcoin-development;  Dâniel Fraga

On Friday, January 17, 2014 2:39:31 AM Christophe Biocca wrote:
> To clarify, there are proposals to make miners recognize this
> situation and account for it, only eligius is running it at the moment
> IIRC:
> http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8390/are-there-any-pools-or-larg
> e-miners-running-child-pays-for-parent-patch Right now if you were to try
> it likely wouldn't result in inclusion. But this is on the radar, and I
> suspect it'll eventually get merged into mainline.

If you did it and relayed directly to Eligius, it'd probably get mined.. the 
hard part is creating the transaction - once that's done it's smooth sailing 
;)

Side note: mining nodes should *not* be running mainline. In fact, they should 
be setting up their own customised transaction policies.