At 03:21 PM 11/25/2001 -0500, David Brooks wrote: > >How is e-gold useful? Transaction fees are orders of magnitude > >larger than the transaction amount. > >Steve, > With respect, I believe you do not understand the >transaction fee structure of e-Gold. This is quoted >from the e-Gold webpage: >http://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/fees.htm > >"The fee for this transaction is 1% of the transaction >amount, subject to a maximum of 50 cents (US$) >equivalent value."
Steve and I experimented with very small e-gold transactions tonight - if he sent me .00001 ounces of gold (USD .002728), I received .000006 ounces (USD .001637), and e-gold took .000004 (USD .001091) for their spend fee .. which is a spend fee of 40 percent, not 1 percent. I think it's entirely reasonable for the e-gold folks to insist on a floor or minimum charge for transaction processing - because that does have a cost - but it's not well disclosed. I get the impression that .000004 ounces is the minimum spend fee, from playing with the calculator at the URL indicated above. I'm still far from convinced that micropayments are important, but e-gold doesn't seem to be a good way to do them if "micro" means under USD .10 or so. (I get the impression that it might be possible to go a lot lower than that if one used silver, not gold, as the limited factor seems to be "ounces", not USD of transaction value - but I don't have any silver to play with, and it's not that interesting to me anyway. Similarly, I wonder about small transactions with higher-value metals. Perhaps other list members are more motivated than I with respect to those experiments.) -- Greg Broiles -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP 0x26E4488c or 0x94245961 4000 dead in NYC? National tragedy. 1000 detained incommunicado without trial, expanded surveillance? National disgrace. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gold.com/stats.html lets you observe the e-gold system's activity now!
