Transaction

04e5d9ca4ec857e5e49ab2e9e97139fc509da078d9e5d1aa574c3bb6ae873e5d
Timestamp (utc)
2024-03-28 07:35:53
Fee Paid
0.00000016 BSV
(
0.00607449 BSV
-
0.00607433 BSV
)
Fee Rate
10.65 sat/KB
Version
1
Confirmations
92,975
Size Stats
1,501 B

2 Outputs

Total Output:
0.00607433 BSV
  • j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMà<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg7524#msg7524">Quote from: satoshi on August 04, 2010, 04:25:36 PM</a></div><div class="quote"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg7498#msg7498">Quote from: Insti on August 04, 2010, 02:58:31 PM</a></div><div class="quote">It seems to do more harm than good because it prevents micropayment implementations such as the one bytemaster is suggesting.</div>Bitcoin isn't practical for very small micropayments. &nbsp;Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, certainly not things needing to pay less than 0.01. &nbsp;The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.<br/><br/>Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. &nbsp;Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. &nbsp;But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments. <br/></div><br/>Why not?<br/>I don't see how size would make a difference.<br/>Is it just due to the number of transactions that the system is able to handle?<br/></div> text/html
    https://whatsonchain.com/tx/04e5d9ca4ec857e5e49ab2e9e97139fc509da078d9e5d1aa574c3bb6ae873e5d