4 ms·

It's presumably only temporary measure, and only present in the reference client. Anything below four decimal places is completely worthless at this point anyw

by nwh 14y ago

It's presumably only temporary measure, and only present in the reference client. Anything below four decimal places is completely worthless at this point anyway; do you really have a use for being able to send 0.01c USD?

waterlesscloud 14y ago
Maybe I do, yes. A handful of developers shouldn't be deciding acceptable business models for bitcoin. That's not going to lead anywhere good.
- numbsafari 14y ago
  It's like they did it by fiat or something.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- lwat 14y ago
  If you're making transactions smaller than 1 cent, keep them off the blockchain. You're just wasting everyone's resources. Aggregate them until they're big enough to matter and THEN commit them to the blockchain.
Avshalom 14y ago
I can't but people are always talking up bitcoin's ability to be more than just currency, so I assume some of those people probably have a use.
stormbrew 14y ago
What if I have need to send $0.10c tomorrow if BTC is then worth $1000? Placing the constraint right on the edge of the current value seems like it will just cause a lot of problems as the value continues to fluctuate.
- lwat 14y ago
  The limit will be adjusted if BTC becomes worth thousands.
  - stormbrew 14y ago
    Yes, I see that they're adding command line flags. I don't really think BTC can be considered so stable at this point that a run up to $1000 and then a drop back down to the low hundreds within a day or two could be considered impossible. And if its value grows beyond even that the fluctuations may swing even wilder in terms of monetary value. I'd also point out that in much of the world, the local equivalent of $0.01 USD may actually not be a trivially dismissable amount of money. But I'm not sure it's a bad idea, I just think they chose a very awkward value to peg it at.
trevelyan 14y ago
Yeah, I do actually.
- lwat 14y ago
  Why
ISL 14y ago
If micropayments are ever to be possible, sub-penny transactions need to happen. If 10^6 people send you $0.001, you get $1k....
- unreal37 14y ago
  You should be able to send whatever value you want, as long as you pay a fee for the resources used. Why should it take hours for my Bitcoin client to sync (and therefore for me to do anything with my Bitcoins) because people want to encode URLs in the blockchain? In a few years, it could take days to sync a new client. What kind of banking system would that be?
  - Jtsummers 14y ago
    Can't you submit transaction before it syncs as long as you you're confident the transaction will be valid? For a business, they could maintain a current sync and you submit your transmitting address to them and they can verify, that way your smartphone doesn't have to get bogged down with the task of anything other than signing the transaction.
    - unreal37 14y ago
      If I recall, the standard Bitcoin client doesn't work until the blockchain is synced. I've had to wait an hour to do a transaction I wanted to do because I hadn't opened it in a few months.
- harshreality 14y ago
  $.001 is so low it's not even worth talking about in terms of a globally visible transaction. Your bank won't let you transfer that amount. Why should bitcoin? You don't need to be able to transfer such amounts in order to have sub-1-cent microtransactions. You can have $.000001 cent microtransactions. You simply can't clear them in the global economy without batching them up... which people are used to doing already, because payment clearing services in gov currency have transaction charges that far exceed $.01. Even if payment processing costs weren't an issue (which would cause many more small unbatched transactions in gov currency, similar to the crap being dumped into the block chain... banks have to log gov currency transactions for auditing purposes), whatever the cost of individual transactions, if you have a payor who owes you $.001 over a billing period, you've done something wrong. They'd be just as willing to pay you $.01 as $.001.

by nwh 14y ago

waterlesscloud 14y ago

Maybe I do, yes. A handful of developers shouldn't be deciding acceptable business models for bitcoin. That's not going to lead anywhere good.

numbsafari 14y ago
It's like they did it by fiat or something.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
lwat 14y ago
If you're making transactions smaller than 1 cent, keep them off the blockchain. You're just wasting everyone's resources. Aggregate them until they're big enough to matter and THEN commit them to the blockchain.

Avshalom 14y ago

I can't but people are always talking up bitcoin's ability to be more than just currency, so I assume some of those people probably have a use.

stormbrew 14y ago

What if I have need to send $0.10c tomorrow if BTC is then worth $1000? Placing the constraint right on the edge of the current value seems like it will just cause a lot of problems as the value continues to fluctuate.

lwat 14y ago
The limit will be adjusted if BTC becomes worth thousands.
- stormbrew 14y ago
  Yes, I see that they're adding command line flags. I don't really think BTC can be considered so stable at this point that a run up to $1000 and then a drop back down to the low hundreds within a day or two could be considered impossible. And if its value grows beyond even that the fluctuations may swing even wilder in terms of monetary value. I'd also point out that in much of the world, the local equivalent of $0.01 USD may actually not be a trivially dismissable amount of money. But I'm not sure it's a bad idea, I just think they chose a very awkward value to peg it at.

trevelyan 14y ago

Yeah, I do actually.

lwat 14y ago
Why

ISL 14y ago

If micropayments are ever to be possible, sub-penny transactions need to happen. If 10^6 people send you $0.001, you get $1k....

unreal37 14y ago
You should be able to send whatever value you want, as long as you pay a fee for the resources used. Why should it take hours for my Bitcoin client to sync (and therefore for me to do anything with my Bitcoins) because people want to encode URLs in the blockchain? In a few years, it could take days to sync a new client. What kind of banking system would that be?
- Jtsummers 14y ago
  Can't you submit transaction before it syncs as long as you you're confident the transaction will be valid? For a business, they could maintain a current sync and you submit your transmitting address to them and they can verify, that way your smartphone doesn't have to get bogged down with the task of anything other than signing the transaction.
  - unreal37 14y ago
    If I recall, the standard Bitcoin client doesn't work until the blockchain is synced. I've had to wait an hour to do a transaction I wanted to do because I hadn't opened it in a few months.
harshreality 14y ago
$.001 is so low it's not even worth talking about in terms of a globally visible transaction. Your bank won't let you transfer that amount. Why should bitcoin? You don't need to be able to transfer such amounts in order to have sub-1-cent microtransactions. You can have $.000001 cent microtransactions. You simply can't clear them in the global economy without batching them up... which people are used to doing already, because payment clearing services in gov currency have transaction charges that far exceed $.01. Even if payment processing costs weren't an issue (which would cause many more small unbatched transactions in gov currency, similar to the crap being dumped into the block chain... banks have to log gov currency transactions for auditing purposes), whatever the cost of individual transactions, if you have a payor who owes you $.001 over a billing period, you've done something wrong. They'd be just as willing to pay you $.01 as $.001.