Quote from: AlexGR on January 17, 2016, 09:30:50 PM

Quote from: Andre# on January 17, 2016, 09:07:52 PM

It's not clear if he meant < 0.01 USD or < 0.01 BTC, but given that in August 2010 1 BTC was worth less than 0.07 USD, lets assume 0.01 USD.

If you click the link, you'll see the discussion was from a question of a member about what does the 0.01 btc fee solve in terms of antispamming and how this would prevent microtransactions etc, and satoshi explains that it is intentionally limiting them.

=>

Quote from: Insti on August 04, 2010, 02:58:31 PM

What exactly is this 'dust spam' that this 0.01BTC transaction fee "solving"?
It seems to do more harm than good because it prevents micropayment implementations such as the one bytemaster is suggesting.

In any case, I wouldn't take it as a fixed value. I mean if BTC goes to 10.000 dollars, 0.01 BTC is meaningless as a limit (it's 100$).

So the suggested anti-spam fee was 0.0007 USD. That doesn't prevent microtransactions. It prevents nanotransactions. Surely, it wasn't meant as 0.01 BTC irrespective of the rising value of BTC. It would mean that the anti-spam fee would be independent from the value of the fee -- that makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote

Quote

I few days ago I wanted to jump the queue. I paid 0.55 USD with my Mycelium wallet.

See? It works as Satoshi said Cool

No, because the normal fee of 0.01 USD is already way more than the anti-spam threshold fee of 0.0007 USD (i.e. 0.01 BTC @ August 2010).