<p>But what if you really needed to pay someone a fraction of a transaction fee? Bitcoin is indiscriminatory in that regard.</p>

<p>Moreover, most transactions have two outputs, one crediting whoever you send your transaction to, and one crediting you back. It is quite easy to send the same small amount transactions to someone while still appearing to be sending a large amount of money in total (the remainder would be sent back to you).</p>

<p>Anyone can enforce arbitrarily low or high transaction fees and modify their software to exclude any and all transactions they don't like (for example, I have heard Luke-Jr's pool does not process SatoshiDice's transaction at all). In the end, it is the will of the people and the miners that will determine the correct fees and rules, not some fixed mandate.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-07T17:33:07.880Z
It sure would make things more complicated and lead to more aggregated addresses - always making sure there is enough in an address so that you can send back to yourself.    I guess it makes things too complicated and would only help little. It would mostly hurt Satoshidice but not help against spamming.      The problem with miners choosing the fees is that they are competing heavily. Because of this I think serious changes to the fee rules would have to be enforced by the network as a whole.
kermit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-08T15:59:17.480Z
Interesting about Luke-Jr's pool not processing SatoshiDice's transactions. Is there any site that catalogs the expected time taken to process a transaction given the input/outputs and the fee payed?
placeybordeaux
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-09T08:07:19.453Z
@PeterMichealLacey-Bordeaux Not that I know of. It would probably vary greatly depending on the current load.
ThePiachu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-07T12:51:05.947Z
2013-03-07T12:51:05.947Z
ThePiachu
<p>Is there a particular reason fees higher than the transaction volume are allowed?</p>

<p>What about imposing this: </p>

<p>Smallest output must be at least 10 times the fee.</p>

<p>Might reduce Spamdice transactions (thinking of losing bets notification).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-07T11:13:14.787Z
Please explain downvote. Am I missing something?
kermit
<transactions><transaction-fees><spam>
Fee height vs. TX value - limit?
kermit
# Fee height vs. TX value - limit?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-03-07)

Is there a particular reason fees higher than the transaction volume are allowed?

What about imposing this:

Smallest output must be at least 10 times the fee.

Might reduce Spamdice transactions (thinking of losing bets notification).

**Tags:** transactions, transaction-fees, spam

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Please explain downvote. Am I missing something?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-03-07. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

But what if you really needed to pay someone a fraction of a transaction fee? Bitcoin is indiscriminatory in that regard.

Moreover, most transactions have two outputs, one crediting whoever you send your transaction to, and one crediting you back. It is quite easy to send the same small amount transactions to someone while still appearing to be sending a large amount of money in total (the remainder would be sent back to you).

Anyone can enforce arbitrarily low or high transaction fees and modify their software to exclude any and all transactions they don't like (for example, I have heard Luke-Jr's pool does not process SatoshiDice's transaction at all). In the end, it is the will of the people and the miners that will determine the correct fees and rules, not some fixed mandate.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: It sure would make things more complicated and lead to more aggregated addresses - always making sure there is enough in an address so that you can send back to yourself.    I guess it makes things too complicated and would only help little. It would mostly hurt Satoshidice but not help against spamming.      The problem with miners choosing the fees is that they are competing heavily. Because of this I think serious changes to the fee rules would have to be enforced by the network as a whole.  
> **username_2**: Interesting about Luke-Jr's pool not processing SatoshiDice's transactions. Is there any site that catalogs the expected time taken to process a transaction given the input/outputs and the fee payed?  
> **username_1**: @PeterMichealLacey-Bordeaux Not that I know of. It would probably vary greatly depending on the current load.  

---

