~snip
Doesn't that transaction get pushed up as the fee is greater as some more amount of data would have to be stored to transfer 1000
BTC compared to 0.1
BTC (It'd only be a few bytes bigger but it would have a greater fee). This probably is also used to stop people clogging the network with small transactions when they can send one large one instead.
Also, based on the previous subject, if the network releases the blocks in a lower amount of time then the community would have to edit everything (Including, site scripts and APIs).
no the data size for 1000 btc can be as low as 227kb the data size for .1 btc can be as low as 227kb.
If I had 1000 btc from solo mining when blocks were 50 btc it would be 20 blocks into my account. Forget fees just made it 50btc per block for easy math. This would be 20 x 227kb = 4540kb on move from address A to Address B since it was 20 transactions to get the 1000 btc.
When I move from Address B to Address C it wold be 227kb physical size.
I could do a fee of .0001
in the case of the 0.1 btc Lets say I was mining on a pool and I ran 0.01 per block so 100 transactions at 227kb = 22700kb
moving from address D to address E when I move from address E to Address F THE SIZE IS 1 TRANSACTION OF 227KB.
SO if I pay 0.0001 for this move of 0.1 btc size of 227kb
VS 0.0001 for the first move of 1,000 btc size of 227kb
the network will put the 1000 btc ahead of the 0.1 btc in priority.
as for the smallest transaction in kb it is 227kb.
I have moved 36btc in a 227kb transaction on a group buy of Avalon 6's
This therefore means that the network just favours the process larger amounts of BTC than smaller amounts fo BTC. PRobably to increase the volume of BTC sent accross the network per day possibly. Or it could just be a way to easilly organise the transactions when the fee is the sime.
Also, does the messages you add to transactions also increase the transaction size so a greater fee is needed to convey a message about a transaction?