Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W3yc2-0006bu-EF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:52:46 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.171; envelope-from=bendavenport@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1W3yc1-0002PG-AD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:52:46 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id wm4so3671698obc.2 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:52:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.120.8 with SMTP id ky8mr4442071oeb.3.1389923559893; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.122.80 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:52:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:52:39 -0800 Message-ID: From: Ben Davenport To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E2niel_Fraga?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e742c0d72ff04f020cc94 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (bendavenport[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1W3yc1-0002PG-AD Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Suggestion: allow receivers to pay optional fee for transactions without fees X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:52:46 -0000 --047d7b2e742c0d72ff04f020cc94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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, D=E2niel Fraga 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/3cde47ee3979a46b36bd61bdb0caf9c11dea58ac99f= 17fb17b95728766de70e0 > > 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=3D119420431&iu=3D/4140/ostg= .clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --047d7b2e742c0d72ff04f020cc94 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You can create a transaction which spends the output to yo= urself, attaching a fee to that transaction. In order for miners to grab th= e transaction fee on that transaction, they would have to also mine the ori= ginal 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, D=E2niel Fraga <fragabr= @gmail.com> wrote:
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 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://imag= eshack.com/i/ngv5g8j

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 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/p= t/tx/3cde47ee3979a46b36bd61bdb0caf9c11dea58ac99f17fb17b95728766de70e0
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 As you can see now it shows as "Transaction not found&= quot;.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 My suggestion is: it would be nice if the receiver could ha= ve a
chance to pay the fee when the sender didn't pay any fee. For example,<= br> 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.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 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?

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Ps: I'm not a programmer, but if the receiver could
optionally "attach" some fee to the transaction, even if he/she d= idn'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.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 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://w= ww.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/gam= pad/clk?id=3D119420431&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--047d7b2e742c0d72ff04f020cc94--