Yes, and they are also seldom added in those cases. Moreover, The amount of the transaction itself isn't whats relevant for the fee calculations (unless it goes under 0.01 BTC).
I'm just stating a simple fact: The bitcoin software uses the _same_ code to determine if fees are required for relay as it does when adding fees to a transaction. If it decides to add one, it's only if other nodes wouldn't have relayed (much less mined) the transaction without them.
Yes, I'm sure you tested and found it worked fine. I expect that in those cases the unmodified reference software also would not have applied a fee.
Actually, I did a 2-level testing.
First, i tested the "normal" client to check if it adds fees. Then i did an identical transaction with identical sum of money.
And guess what. The mainline client ALWAYS (state as of december 2011) wants a fee when you resend money that are younger than 30 minutes.
My client does not. And the transaction produced by my client got confirmed easily (up to 2 hours).
I want to have freedom to choose whether i want to pay fees that may or may not be necessary.
[...]
Also, as i already stated somewhere in this topic, **this is not a "proper" fork, just a simple 2 line - patch ** for people who value freedom of choice the same as I do.
And freedom you have, there is nothing I could do to take that away from you even if I wanted to, though I don't.
Your promotion on your signature, "Getting robbed by miners", however isn't just about providing a choice. As far as I can tell it's about spreading misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Well, actually i think you may be at least partially right here.
I will remove the "getting robbed by miners" ad, and replace it with something "lighter".
It reduces choice by clouding people's judgement with the fear that they'll lose money and may cause them to run your fork when under a rational analysis they would not.
Your change is also not a 2 line patch. Diffing your RC tag and the reference client RC tag gives me a 289 line diff.
You appear to be missing at least one random patch from mainline in December. I'm sure this was a simple mistake, but what happens when such a mistake introduces a data corruption bug?
This is interesting.
Gitk shows that my branch is fully merged with master, except for my little patch.
I will diff it myself now and show you the results in a few minutes.
In any case, I didn't post for your benefit, we've gone over this before. I was just making a regular cautionary post so that people who are just seeing this thread for the first time won't jump to the end and miss the earlier discussion.
There is a "cautionary" big, red warning in the first post, shouldn't that be enough ?