Bitcoin Forum

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577
So, From what i've read, is that 0.8.2. is going to not allow micro transactions of less than 5430 satoshi's
Bitcoin was designed to be divisible by 8 decimal places, If we are removing some of those decimals we are undermining the entire structure of bitcoin!

I can fully understand and agree that a transaction of .00000002 should be blocked though.
What are the opinions?

I need the option "as long as it's flexible enough to adjust for big price changes I'm fine with it"
We don't really need transactions that are way below 1 cent.

But I wonder how changes are handled, it would be awful, if there would be a random chance of an error in the qt-client due to coin selection.

The tiny transactions are being used as a DDOS mechanism. 

When Bitcoin rises in value, this change can easily be reversed so for now, its a great idea.

We need a mining pool that does not upgrade to 0.8.2.

I would be willing to buy an ASIC and join that pool specifically for this.

Why do you want a pool that does not upgrade to 0.8.2?

It is a default soft rule, not a new network rule.  I'm sure many miners will continue to relay and include those transactions in blocks, but the transactions will be harder to get through.

I think it is a wise move.  It helps users, because those small transactions are unspendable without paying more in fees than the inputs are worth.  Nanotransactions can be used to DoS the receivers wallet by making unspendable balances.  The limit will probably be reduced in the future when the default minimum fee for large transactions (in bytes) is lowered (it was recently lowered from 0.0005 to 0.0001 BTC).

A mining pool to allow microtransactions to pass through.

Do you have a source on this proposed change, for anyone who is not actively involved in the development and/or frequent the mailing lists?

I agree with you that the "Hero" thing is nonsense.  They say that an infinite number of monkeys hitting on keyboards would result in the complete works of Shakespeare.  The Hero tag is just a micro version of that.

But I don't agree about the impact of endless tiny transactions on markets.

nothing  should be blocked, what should be done is strengthening the source code to allow the network to cope.

ignorance and avoidance is a lazy persons way out of a situation..

gavins reason for doing it is because fee's are so high that satoshi dust becomes economically unspendable.

my solution. strengthen the network to cope. remove the fee's as 25 coins at $115 each ($2875) for 10 minutes work is currently enough. fee's are not needed right now to pay for miners interests.

keep idea's like fee's for version 5 (in a few decades).

Noob question ??? :
Can we just move comma 2 steps right? For example turn 0.05297585 into 5.297585
So, 5.297585 will be equal ~5$ its very convenient. Block rewald will be 2500 BTC
Its like turn BTC to centiBTC.

Because i think, that when bitcoin was created, no one expected that it will be cost ~100$. And now we have some problems with useless micro BTC transactions dusting blockchain, and diffirent opinions about upcoming 0.8.2 client.  ::)

It's a bad idea to move the decimal point (especially just to make it convenient for dollar users). It will cause confusion every time you move it, and it doesn't really solve anything because everything, including the limit being discussed, will be adjusted also.

Yes, please read the developer's discussion here on Github (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577#issuecomment-17138244)

This patch replaces a hard-baked-in minimum fee by a test for "dust outputs". The developer's plan is to have a more dynamic test for "dust outputs" later on. Eventually they want to determine what is "dust" by observing what is currently being accepted into blocks on average  (but this is way more expensive to implement).

I don't understand how a self-respecting developer can seriously consider implementing such a horrible hack as a temporary solution.

You are being paid to develop Bitcoin, right? Then come up with a real solution, and not some half-baked, dirty quick fix that has such a potential to harm Bitcoin.

Good idea, I mean, if I send you 1 satoshi, with the fee structure we're using right now you cannot spend that 1 satoshi (0.0005BTC fee), so I loose 1 satoshi, you get nothing and the blockchain gets bloated. Its a no brainer, well at least until we have a proper fee structure in lace

Yeah im gonna have to tend to agree with this guy... There has got to be a better solution.

And this better solution is....?

(come on, guys, you are so smart)

Like?

It's not like we could actually spend these outputs before, they were always/still are unspendable. Why should we have unspendable BTC? It makes sense to block them for now. Miner's ultimately decide what tx fees we have to pay, years down the line maybe the fees will be low enough in order to allow spending of these pico-transactions.

Maybe you could add another fee for every output below a certain limit (including some coin age magicz?)
Right now there are websites mass-sending single satoshis with send-many or something like this, so the current fee rules aren't appropiate.

Except Gavin.

Oopsie, did not realize that was now the case.

+1 everybody shits on gavin, yet none of them are capable, or even willing to do his job. he's a volunteer, too, you know.

I used to sit on the board of a small non-profit (a community art gallery and workshop) it was incredible how many people, full of anger and hate, would not just criticism, but outright denounce, smear, and insult all of us on the board for any and all decisions we would work on as a group. I began offering the most vocal opponents a seat on the board, it was open to the public and all were welcome of course. NOT ONE STEPPED UP! seems like its a hell of a lot easier to tell someone how to do their job than actually take any responsibility yourself.

that's my 2 uBTC worth, its flying around in space somewhere if you want to pocket it.

And switch to another *coin without the 1 MB block limit (this is a hard limit which is impossible to remove, in the same way that there can never be more than 21 million bitcoins) and no fees and by buying more disk and faster network and really fast CPUs to everyone.  Yeah.  Easy!  Because we need spamcoins!

What we need is someone forking the source code, with the only difference being the transaction limit, should be very easy to do.

I'll give 'bitcoin-legacy.org' to anyone or group who I feel is on the right track on things of this nature and can convince me that they have a chance.  Fair warning though, I feel that the best way forward is to

 - either force the minimum transaction value to a high number or let the following do the job.

 - keep the 1MB block size if not shrink it even further.

 - shit-can all but the most simplistic types of transactions and fully document them.  No 'c++ client defines behavior' BS.

The majority is speaking... too bad Gavin is sold out to the FEDS.  He has no interest in what the majority wants.

This is the death of btc if this happens... mark my words.

This.

Worse it bloats the UXTO which puts unecessary load on all full nodes for absolutley not reason.  Nobody is going to spend 1/10 of a cent if it costs 5x as much to spend it.  Nobody so the current rules allow the creation of tx (at no cost) which produce outputs which will "never" (or highly unlikely) to be spent. 

Another way to look at it.  Over 50% of the pruned database consists of tx below the min fee threshold.  Outputs that very likely will never be spent.  Had this rule been in place since the beginning the pruned database would be half the size right now. 

The pruned (not full but pruned) database is the bottleneck to scalability.  The current fee rules don't properly account for the creation of tx which have a "lasting cost".  This rule improves that.

It's an unfortunate but genuine truism that 'the majority' are fucking idiots.  I hate to be blunt about it but there is ample evidence.  As an example, reading into things that this action somehow indicates that Gavin, or anyone else, "sold out to the FEDS."

I will mark your words.  This isn't the death of anything.  It prevents the creation of outputs which are unecomical to spend.  Thus they are never spent and remain in the UXTO forever.  This bloats the UXTO.  Current rules don't distinguish between tx which are likely to be respent and tx which are unlikely to be respent.  Tx smaller than the min fee on low priority tx are not being spent.  The blockchain shows that is true, they make no sense to spend them (because generally it costs more to spend them then they are worth).  This rule merely prevents the creation of tx outputs which will never be spent.

The UXTO is the key bottleneck.  Even pruned full nodes need to maintain the UXTO forever.  For fast verification the UXTO will need to be kept into memory.  "Normal" tx tend to be respent A->B->C thus while they increase the size of the unpruned db they don't increase the size of the UXTO.  Without this rule (or something similar) the cost to run a full node will increase exponentially just so people can produce unspendable txs.

Once this change goes through an a super majority is using 0.82 I would like to see a "loophole" to the min-fee rules of low priority tx which makes low-priority tx that REDUCE the UXTO exempt.  This would allow cleaning up the pruned blockchain.  In periods where tx volume is low clients could combined large numbers of dust-spam into a single larger output.  Everyone benefits.  Miners benefit because the memory requirements for full nodes are reduced,  users with "fragmented wallets" benefit because they can "defrag" in an economical manner.  Allowing this loophole combined with blocking (at the client level) tx below dust threshold will make the network more robust.

The dust threshold can be reduced (just like min-tx fee on low priority txs has been reduced twice) to keep dust truly dust (i.e. uneconomical spam garbage).

I don't care what you think.  This is regulation plain and simple.  This is not what I was led to believe bitcoin was.  If bitcoin can't handle itself then another coin should take it's place.  END OF STORY.

Kind of a bummer that the poll is a bit misleading—  they're not mined and relayed by default, but miners can still include them. Is that "block"ed?  The value is configurable, so if in two weeks the value of Bitcoin rises and 1 BTC buys an airplane, people can just turn the knob— no need for a new version. etc.

If a transaction reduces the UTXO set by n outputs, then calculate an effective transaction fee for relaying decision purposes equal to the actual transaction fee + n*minimum fee.

Do you think that we should have a vote, and then force (by some means) Gavin to implement what the majority votes for? Or perhaps do you think that we should have elections for lead developer and vote based on the person's campaign? That sounds like a centralized currency to me. Is that what you really want? How would you solve this controversy and others like it?

I think that if you don't like his software, all you have to do is come up with competing software and show enough people how much better it is. If enough people choose your software, then Gavin's software becomes irrelevant.

+1

The scare thread in the bitcoin discussion forum was a troll from the start. I had posted a thread with a technical sounding topic in the technical forum a few days prior as I had a legitimate question and didn't want to cause a panic. (I wasn't sure I understood the change.) I think I mentioned ASICMINER in it which is a concern I had -- the troll picked up on that too as he mentioned ASICMINER payouts in his original post. It's unlikely someone would mention that IMO. So all this panic is for naught. The change is worthwhile. (Although it would be good for devs to post announcements about changes in the development forum... or if these forums are too mob-like then at least an announcement should be made that such announcements will NOT be made in these forums and instead to check a specific mailing list). I just happen to watch github because I love bitcoin :D

There's a difference between micro payments of $0.10 or $1 or something, and $0.00005. The former is good, the latter not.

Says todays exchange rate.. tomorrow?? 

This is the issue.

Thats why it's configurable, so if tomorrow you can buy a tank for 1 BTC there is no issue... no need for software updates, just twiddle the knob. (Of course, new versions would twiddle the default too— or make it automatic once someone figures out a secure way of doing that).

So now that your concern has been addressed, will you go back and apologize for drumming up a lot of misplaced hysteria?

Miners will tweak the values because they want to earn the transaction fee which becomes worth a lot.

No hysteria.

You are trying to soften the blow of regulations being put upon Bitcoin...  You are the guilty party sir.

Stay strong, don't let the dev team try to get into your mind... They are trying to cover up the censorship.

Do you guys do parties?  This performance art is _amazing_.

Gmaxwell: "Thats why it's configurable, so if tomorrow you can buy a tank for 1 BTC there is no issue... no need for software updates, just twiddle the knob. "
bitcoiners: "You are trying to soften the blow of regulations being put upon Bitcoin...  You are the guilty party sir."
Gweedo: "Stay strong, don't let the dev team try to get into your mind... They are trying to cover up the censorship."

cant. stop. giggling.

I don't see what is so funny, that the thing I most passionate in my career is going down hill... Did I miss something funny?

I actually believe you. I just don't think that thing you are most passionate about is Bitcoin.

I don't know how to prove it, but if you read my threads, I am passionate about it, otherwise I wouldn't care what the devs did.

You realize there are already regulations, right?  Like only 8 decimal places worth of value, 1MB blocksize limit, the script language is not Turing-complete.  Oh, but those were put in by Satoshi, so they're automatically alright?  I swear, Satoshi being absent makes him some mythical god-like figure who did everything right, but now the dev team are viewed as either conspiring with the feds or just bumbling idiots.

Do you people even read the descriptions of these changes?  Right now it's possible to receive amounts so small that "it costs more in fees tha[n] they are worth" to spend them (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191425.msg1985498#msg1985498).  Who in their right mind thinks this is a desirable property for the system to retain?  Furthermore, the change in question makes these types of things more configurable than they were before.  When you're informed, the idea that this change is shoving some agenda down the network's throat is absurd.

Lobby to get the fee structure modified so that 1-satoshi outputs are economical (not an idea I support, but I haven't heard rational arguments for it either), or for some way to re-package dust outputs into something usable on the network, or to get a pool to support your favorite settings.  I don't really care, but at least do something that makes you look like you understand how things work and are willing to do more than whine and sling mud at mostly-volunteer developers.

What about adding a command that is the mirror image of sendmany, so you could consolidate however many receipts of of nano-coins (or any amount) into a single transaction you can only send to yourself and pay a fee based on the total amount?  Controls could be put in place for a minimum total for a consolidation (say 0.01 BTC) and protection against "double-send" by an appropriate confirmation number.

Then the dust threshold is reduced.  The min tx fee for low priority tx was at one time 0.01 BTC (~$1.20 today) and it has been reduced twice.

There ALREADY are rules in clients on what tx are relayed.  This is simply changing the rules to one which better aligns the cost of creating outputs which will remain in the UXTO forever, something current anti-spam rules do not do.

Don't forget the very important feature of making the new rules user configurable instead of hard coded.

Hmm.  The majority among those who are voting seems to think it is a good idea.  I only see a couple of very loud voces speaking against this change, and none of them have demonstrated the slightest understanding of it.  I haven't seen a single developer speak against the change.  Gavin is one of many.  Those who were given more mouth than brains seems to overlook this fact as well.

It's a good idea    39 (24.2%)
It's a good idea, But not at 5430 Satoshi    9 (5.6%)
It's a bad idea    57 (35.4%)
It's a bad idea, It should be a lower # of btc    1 (0.6%)
It's a temporary fix that should adjust with price    19 (11.8%)
It's a temporary fix that should be revised later    36 (22.4%)
Total Voters: 161


35% think it is bad, so yeah not majority LOL try and look at the facts when they are infront of your face.

Add up multiple categories.  The people who are not absolutely opposed, in other words generally support, outnumber those who oppose.  Are you cherry-picking the "temporary fix" folks onto your side or something?  The wording of that choice obviously means it is acceptable to them as it stands.

I'm curious if you have a response to "I only see a couple of very loud voces speaking against this change, and none of them have demonstrated the slightest understanding of it."  I agree wholeheartedly.  If you have an objection based on an understanding, please let it be known.  All I've seen is your claim that small transactions are not hurting the network and that developers are greedy  (WTF? what do they have to gain from this?)

Gavin says the point of the pull request is "to discourage people from bloating users' wallets and the UTXO set with tiny outputs."  In other words, small transactions are harmful.  Do you have an explanation for why this assessment is incorrect, or do you just inherently distrust Gavin because he's one of the "fat cats" at the top, conspiring to drive Bitcoin into the ground?

Why didn't you complain when 0.00000000 outputs were made non-standard in the same way some versions ago?  Same problem, same reason to make them non-standard.  Spendable, but only in theory because it doesn't make sense to pay fees to spend them.  You can still send the transactions, and evil miners may mine them just like other dust creating transactions.  I don't want them in the blockchain, so I won't help you relaying or mining them.  That's my choice.  You can't force me to, just as I can't force you to stop behaving badly.

First off I only care about that "It's a bad idea    57 (35.4%)" it is the majority I don't care about the rest. So you add them six ways to sunday, and skew the results how you want but that is the majority.

Second no cause I actually understand completely what they are doing, and I never said the developers were greedy, I said Gavin was greedy. They are censoring bitcoin, if I want to send 0.00000001 regardless of fees or whatever, I should be able too. Also they are doing this out of a vendetta against satoshi dice which any business is killed by censorship is completely against what bitcoin is. I made this clearly in about 2 different threads.

Third, if you don't have the Hard disk to run a full node maybe you shouldn't? there are other options. So that doesn't harm bitcoin, it harms people who aren't update with there computers. It is really a fix for something the developers should be working on, instead of putting a temp patch on.

Cause it was your option to pay the fees, miner still had to include them and relays still had to relay. Was that big of a deal to be honest. This is completely censoring.

Sorted the list.

36% think it is bad, and 59% agrees perfectly with the change.  (The number will be adjusted with the price of a transaction, and yes it will be revised when the automatic txfee market is done, so both agree.)  0.6% thinks the limit should be lower, and 5.6% thinks it should be higher than 5430 Satoshi.  In total 64% thinks it is a good idea.  A large majority.

Thanks for skewing the results of the poll to fit your need. You know there companies that pay big bucks for that ;)

LOL, you accuse me of skewing.  You can care about whatever you want, but it's an outright lie to represent "It's a bad idea [forever]" as winning over the current combination majority who are, at this very moment in current conditions, collectively in favor.  Not that a vote holds any sway over what the development team of an open-source project has to do.

Oh, just Gavin's greedy.  Sounds just as ridiculous as the whole team being greedy, so my point stands.  Having a vendetta against Satoshi Dice is not the same as being greedy, even if such a vendetta is the reason for this change.  By Satoshi Dice's own estimation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191425.msg2042588#msg2042588), the increase to their costs is so tiny it's laughable to say this will kill them.  They might have to pay 430 extra satoshi, a whopping $0.0005074 at current prices.


You will still be able to do this.  You just have to find nodes to relay and mine the transaction for you, just like you do today.  The default settings are just making it harder.  Since you're willing to pay any fees, please contact a pool op and make a deal to ensure your transaction is mined.

You read nothing I posted, I am done with you, cause you just talking about what you want too. Yes Majority is no one wants it, sorry you think skewing it will trick anybody into saying your right, which no one has.

Thank you for making me press the ignore button.

Oh look.
This.
'Fix'.
Again.
Again.
Again.Again.
Again.Again.Again.Again.
Again.Again.Again.
Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.A gain.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Ag ain.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Aga in.Again.Again.Again.

People, i think the solution should be this:

Forbid transaction that includes output less than x for a output address with an actuall amount of less than y.

Where x is 100 times less than the transaction fee and y 100 times more than the transaction fee.
And,
the transaction fee IS the average of the transaction fee included in the last 4380 blocks.(1 month)
with a minimum hardcoded that will change, 0.0001 for transactions of less than 0.01(at the moment)

so for example if the currently average transaction fee is 0.00054
you cannot send less than 0.0000054 to an address with less than 0.054 (it will bounce back as change?)

this will:
1- Encourage the consolidation of addresses for people that have little amounts of coins and many addreses.
2- Not prevent people from making satoshi-transactions (they will pay a fee but they will have to have some balance in the receiving address)
3- Not bloat the blockchain
4- Help in the eventually cleanup of the blockchain: then after an x period, we can cleanup all addresses with less than 100 times the transaction fee safely.(i'm not sure if this last one is possible, but we could alow the sending for free of this satoshis to a address with a minimum balance)

That should deal with the bloated blockchain problem...
people with small amounts of satoshis, and that care enought, can still recover them by sending some btc (over 0.01) to the address and then send it it back or by  alowing the sending for free of satoshis only if they leave the address with 0 balane and are send to a address with a minimum balance.

TL,DR:
Encourage consolidation of addreses, forbid sending satoshis to an empty address, allow sending satoshis (if paying fee) to an address with balance, helping cleanup of blockchain (addresess with 0 balance should be pruned)

it isfine

I think I've found the problem.

You have been operating under the mistaken impression that miners had to include certain transactions, and that nodes had to relay them.

No one has ever had to do anything.  Miners have always been free to set their own policies for inclusion into blocks, and node operators have always been free to set their own relay policies.

This patch makes it vastly easier for miners and node operators to implement their own policy decisions.  Calling it "regulation" or "censorship" is somewhere between Orwellian and Kafkaesque.

This is how I feel about this situation.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/almiv8o3cyqbjik/Bitcoin-Censored.png


http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1drs61/bitcoincensored/

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
It may not be the best solution to the problem, but calling it Censorship is way off the road.

Bitcoin has never been about deregulation as it is based on a decentralized form of regulation, but still regulation.

This change will allow peers in the network decide which transactions they forward and which not based on their value. Nothing more, nothing less.

Miners already have the ability to decide which transactions they include in a block based on a fee, now I find it correct that as a user I have the ability to choose what I forward and what I don't.

Correct, though I must add that users already choose what to forward, or not.

Most notably, the client will not relay transactions outside of a very narrowly defined set of "standard" transactions.  The vast majority of possible transactions are not relayed by default.  This policy has been in place for years.

Please don't twist my words, every one else understood what I was saying, and it wasn't what you think I was saying. I am not commenting on this subject anymore cause I realized that people here, take the words from the dev team to heart instead of challenging them on this "temp fix" which I have a feeling will be long term, censorship. It quite sad how many people will skew results, or twist words to fit it to what the dev team is saying including members of the dev team. They should all be ashamed of how they conduct business to the community.

I don't see how I've twisted your words.  They are plain words, and their common meanings aren't unclear.

Before, if you wanted a node with a different mining or relay policy, you had to write your own, or modify the source and recompile.  After, you can tweak a setting in your configuration file and restart.*  Hardly end of the world stuff, and not in any way deserving of a dozen-thread smear campaign on the forums.

P.S.  I didn't have to take anyone's word for what the patch does.  The source code is public, I just clicked the link and read it.

*  I was thinking of writing a patch to create RPC commands to edit these configuration values without even needing the restart.  Some moron claimed that 95% of bitcoin users weren't competent to edit their config file, which I don't in any way believe to be true.  Still, adding a RPC command would make it settable by anyone that can find the debug window.  It would also allow people to write third party bots to make live adjustments based on whatever data feeds they thought appropriate.

Is bitcoin no more a decentralized network!!?? This is a fresh new for me!

Is it on the specifications? If it is not, you cannot order miners for some minimum output. Someone can make another client and pool which *conforms* the spec and allows smaller transctions.

But would it be against spec to allow any pool (or miner) to decide what transactions that pool lets in? Ie. a configuration option for minimum transaction output and fee?

I would guess markets would find a suitable minimum they accepts. Of course, there would be some pools which would accept all, but that would be minority. And if only some allows, that itself prevents the DDOS.

Yes. There are configuration options for those. In bitcoind/-qt. No "make another client" needed.

Most people are missing the point  :-\


The point is that no one person should be able to tell the populous what to do.


That's the point of bitcoin.. Dividing the groups is bad..


Whats next? 1/100th of fees need to be deposited to dev accounts? upgrade to this or we wont ever upgrade bitcoin again!

Great idea!  I'm sure the solution could (and would) be extended to stream any wallet.dat files found kicking around to a new home pretty quickly.

This

and, if you want to do a lot of TX for value less then 1 penny just use LTC ?

That is a general problem with the RPC system.  Sadly, adding a granular permission system to it is beyond what I'm able to tackle right now.  Splitting the RPC calls into public, private and trusted, and having distinct credentials for each level would be quite a bit easier, but still not something I have time for.*

Also, a script to monitor a few data feeds and calculate appropriate fee levels would be pretty simple.  Most people that would actually need such a thing should be able to write their own.

*  If I were doing it, I would add four new config values, rpcpublicuser, rpcpublicpassword, rpcprivateuser and rpcprivatepassword.  The current values (rpcuser and rpcpassword) would be for the trusted account, just like today.  Another approach would be to leave the current values as the public info, and make trusted values, but this would break everything.  Purely informational calls would require that the user authenticate using any of the three.  Calls that could be annoying, but not dangerous, like settxrelayfee, would be public or trusted.  Calls that could be dangerous, like sendtoaddress, would require the trusted account.  Anyone want a relatively simple project to learn bitcoin development with?

Hey Gweedo,
Sorry for being the English police, but do you understand the difference between the words "cause" and "because"?  While your arguments might have merit, you discredit yourself  with  your shitty adolescent understanding of basic grammar.

Yes I do, I was writing this at 2:30am, so I doubt anyone's grammer is of a high level scholar at that time. But what does this have to do with my views, I feel this is so off-topic and actually discredits you since, your attacking that, when the basic views I have talked about many times, and the people that need to understand, understood it.

You're attempting convince others in this forum to believe in the arguments you're presenting.  Nobody is going to take you seriously when you present your arguments like a 15 year old girl texting her friends.  Simply review your response to me.  Who is going to take your views, versus the developers, regarding the changes to the bitcoin protocol seriously when you can't formulate a proper sentence.

Well you don't even understand the changes so how do you know my argument isn't correct or correct? It isn't a change to the protocol, it is to the client. You just a follower, not even going to waste even more replies on you.

Trying to talk to a wall is impossible. They won't ever get it, they will follow and do what ever the dictator says or does. :/

Another words, they will follow

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/almiv8o3cyqbjik/Bitcoin-Censored.png

no matter what.

It's, "You're just a follower, therefore I'm not even going..."


"In other words..."

I'm curious. Those who feel this shouldn't exist, then how do you propose we eliminate vacuous transactions meant to bog down the network?

I know they rather try and take the thread off-topic before even learning what they are debating about if you can even call it debating LOL.



That isn't my job, that is why Gavin gets a salary he should be working on that. Instead he just puts a temp patch and goes on a walk for an interview.

I would advocate leaving this decision to miners. Miners should have the ability to form a marketplace for what they will confirm in a block and what they won't confirm. Would you accept this system?

This decision still makes my skin crawl, because I know it is wrong to do, it is unethical. My skin crawls when I think of big bankers, because I know they are evil motherfuckers. I just cannot believe how many followers there are. It's like the ones that state, usa is not a police state, makes my skin fucking crawl. /venting

We have had this conversation over and over, and it is getting really hard to keep answering the same questions again and again. So just look in the thread you should be able to find it.

I know... The best part is that everyone just ignores us, cause they can't be bothered with the truth. It makes me so angry and sad at the same time.

Gweedo you need to be a bit more patient with people. You're attacking Gavin for doing something and then when I ask what would you like to do you say it's not my job. Ok, I gather that so I ask about an alternative system. I'm sorry if someone asked this before, I just came to this thread.

But let me ask a slightly broader question. Do you still feel the bitcoin protocol reflects your philosophy? Or has the time come in your opinion for a fork?

It's a good idea    68 (26.3%)
It's a good idea, But not at 5430 Satoshi    12 (4.6%)
It's a bad idea    86 (33.2%)
It's a bad idea, It should be a lower # of btc    3 (1.2%)
It's a temporary fix that should adjust with price    32 (12.4%)
It's a temporary fix that should be revised later    58 (22.4%)
Total Voters: 259

Just want to point out majority think it is a bad idea...  this voting hasn't changed "It's a bad idea" has been in the lead the whole time.

All you need to do is change your config file.  It's not too difficult.  I'd suggest that you develop your own client but changing the config file of 8.2 would be simpler.  Your "problem" is solved.

If Bitcoin is going to become mainstream, then this is a bad idea. We need to understand the vast majority of new users will just accept the default configuration. It is unrealistic to expect anything else.

I am not a attacking Gavin. I am saying what I don't like, just like a president (didn't use that word on accident), I am voicing my opinion. That is like asking "Bob why is alice failing at her job" well bob would answer "I don't know I don't study her job I do my own jobs, I know the outline of what her job should be and she doesn't deliver that so I would say no she isn't"

The bitcoin protocol doesn't reflect my views currently on that aspect. Would I said it is time for a fork I don't know yet.

That isn't true at all, if the miners don't change there config with is on by default then they are supporting the change and you are forced to go with it.

Problem is not solved, because it is there in the first place.

Fixed :p , bolded "it's a bad idea"

Great so you agree that 0.8.2 is a great solution because .... it does leave it up to miners.  It replaced a constant with a variable that has a a default value one any node can modify.  If a miner wants to include tx which has 1 satoshi outputs using 0.8.2 they can.  If they want to require no fee for a giant 200KB tx which spams the network by having 500,000 1 satoshi outputs ... they can.

So what is the problem? 

If I could get Peter Thiel and Paul Allen to join a new foundation for a new cryptocurrency that preserves some of the best features of Bitcoin, yet implements some of the features of the Hard Fork wishlist. Would you consider adopting it?

I was thinking about a system with 100 million bitcoin2.0s with 21 million premined and given to a special exchange allowing bitcoiners to convert their holdings in btc to btc2.0 on a 1-1 conversion rate. Miners would have control of transaction fees by a market system. Perhaps develop a P2P currency exchange to eliminate the need for a Mtgox.

I might write a whitepaper over the Summer.  

Why would you think that this update to the client necessitates a fork in the protocol?

No your going to the wrong direction, your going to the alt-coin that is too extreme, I still love bitcoins, I am not going anywhere. Bitcoins are my career, and this is just a bump in the experiment, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I'm wondering if you had some hope of using the 'cheap subsidized messaging' capabilities of Bitcoin for some project or another and got a dose of cold water in the face?

Gweedo, before you start your career in Bitcoin, you need to get through the 5th grade.  "You're", not "Your."

Nope, not at all, I just feel it is something that takes it too far off of the white papers, that it isn't bitcoin anymore it is devteamcoin or something.


Dude just stop your off-topic, your not helping in anyway, but doing that. We got your point, you think I am dumb, good now bye.

P.S just to throw salt on your wound, I am already started my career, and I am probably richer than you will ever be, so you can be jealous.

gweedo, you're hilarious. You blaming others of skewing the poll because it does not fit your expectation... This is pure awesomeness  ;D
I just hope that also the devs have the serenity to not take your troll attempts too serious. And respect to everyone who tried to give you a polite and technically sound answer.

Two other corrections here:
1. Miners never had to include any transactions in a block.  They have always been free to chose.
2. Relays never had to relay any transactions.  All nodes are free to chose which transactions to relay.

This is, always has been, and will still be in 0.8.2, depending on txfees and other characteristics of the transaction.

Which makes gweedo's entire post wrong, like all of his posts in this thread.  There is not a single clue in his head about how bitcoin works.

For a couple of years now I have been reading periodic debates where one guy says, “21M Bitcoins will never be enough if the whole world wants to use it.” Then another guy shows up (DnT) and says, “Oh, but Bitcoin is divisible down so many decimals that it will easily fill the need as adoption increases.”

So which is it: Either adoption is never expected to tax the 21m limit so we can afford to knock off decimals, we will have to return to accepting dust payments eventually so may as well just keep using them now or we need to allow a breach of the 21m limit.

Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.

No decimals are knocked off.  The minimum value is calculated from the minimum fee.  When the minimum fee goes down (it has gone from 0.01 BTC to 0.0001 BTC while I have been using bitcoin), the size of economically unspendable outputs will decrease as well.  In the future the minimum fee will get calculated dynamically based on which transactions actually make it to the blockchain, and eventually a 0.00000001 BTC output will become standard again.

I disagree. Pruning valid unspent outputs would IMO be a much more drastic measure.

Can I send a payment for 0.00000001?

That's what I though back before...I dunno...a pretty GUI, wallet encryption, multi-sig, etc, etc.  Most importantly, before the system gained a large userbase who relied on it.  Oh well.  Since I lack the skill and interest to actually do anything myself along these lines I can hardly complain.

Sure as long as you can find a miner willing to include it in a block.  The 0.8.2 change simply sets a DEFAULT min output size.  A miner could reduce it to 0.0000001 if they want to.  They likely won't or if they do will require a much larger tx fee so if you want to pay 0.0001 to send 0.0000001 then go ahead.

Miners have ALWAYS been free to include or not include a tx in the next block.  That was true prior to 0.8.2 and it true after 0.8.2.

I guess I'm in the same boat as you. I wouldn’t learn that crappy C++ if God refused the entry to heaven unless I learned it.

I guess I will just resign myself to never running a full node again. I like electrum anyway.

Once the fee increases and mining revenue gets set higher will miners ever want to get less revenue (once Gasoline increases in price will it ever go down  substantially)?

Fees have only gone down since Bitcoin began.  The min mandatory fee for low priority tx was initially 0.01 BTC it has been lowered three times.  If one miner tries to hold out for higher fees, another miner can always make a killing offering to include tx for less.

Still your "concern" has nothing to do with 0.8.2 then.  This has been a characteristic of Bitcoin since the genesis block.  Miners have always been free to exclude tx which has low/no tx fee.  Always.

Oh, well then I don't care. Carry on.

As long as a tx includes a fee – any fee – the first one to mine it will get that fee.  In the future, if the price of BTC increases and as the block reward is reduced, miners will probably mine transactions with lower fees as well.  Even a low fee is extra income to the miner.  First to mine collects it.

There is a small cost related to mining very large blocks (larger risk of getting orphaned), which is the main reason for ignoring transactions with insignificant fees.  There is a small hidden cost related to mining transactions which never will be spent as well, due to the increasing utxo set, so I expect most miners and pools to happily upgrade to 0.8.2 as soon as it is released.

This whole voting thing gets even more ridiculous when you think about this: the entire network is "voting" every day on what the rules are.  The true "will of the people" will be known when this patch hits production.  If a majority like it (or just don't care), it will be in force; otherwise not.

Granted, the above sort of ignores the great power pools wield in these types of things.  But that isn't the developers' fault!  If you care deeply one way or the other, find a pool that agrees with you and support them in some way, and patch/configure your personal client to express your preferences.  That's how you cast your vote, or in this case make sure sub-$0.0059732 transactions are confirmed.

If you don't like the reference client, patch/configure it yourself.  If you can't, I don't think you have any business complaining about such insignificant matters when you're using a first-of-its-kind open-source beta product produced by (mostly) volunteer developers.

How will this affect sites like BitVisitor.com?

Well, here's their last 10 payouts:


An average of 23.92 uBTC, u (micro) = 10^-6, satoshi = 10^-8, converting: 23.92 uBTC = 23.92 * 10^-6 / 10^-8 = 2392 satoshi.  Too small; with this change the average payout (with this limited data) will take a long time to confirm, or never confirm, depending on how high the adoption level of the change is.  Notice in this sample there is one payout that would be large enough.  They may have to raise their payout threshold or find some other way to transfer an average value of $0.0027508 to their users.  I suggest a single coin from whatever the latest Litecoin fork is at the time (that will be an overpayment, but it's nice to err on the side of caution.)

If their advertisers are paying such small amounts they would also have to make a solution to that too.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dt3n8/lets_get_realistic_i_walked_by_a_penny_yesterday/

Wrong in so many ways ...

If you send me 1 satoshi, I get 1 satoshi - end of story.

Nothing stops me spending it (whether I have to pay a fee, or carefully calculate how to spend it at the time of using an "old" bitcoin, or leave it for years to eventually age or whatever is my choice)
 - I still have 1 more satoshi than I started with.

Blockchain bloat - yes it's an issue, one that the current plan does nothing to actually addresss.

Fees are also an issue - one that requires a rethink on overall 'wallet management'.

It's going to affect CoinURL.com (https://coinurl.com)... we would no longer be able to pay out small satoshi payouts like we normally do.. but I suppose raising the minimum withdrawal is sort of an answer..  that is forced upon us..

Why have you been doing that in the first place?  Sending out payments which the receiver is unable to use without paying a fee much larger than the payment received, is just telling the users to "f**k off, we don't want you here, go away".

I've been wrapping my head around the whole thing for awhile now and it just seems like one of those bans/limitations to a much larger problem ( If it is as much as a problem as people seem to think ) but to me it does seem as if some miners are desperate to get there way an awful lot when it comes to Bitcoin even if it means wrecking who whole currency just so they can profit more in paper money. If you remember we had a load of them ranting about the hard limits put on Bitcoin too and ASIC miners, screaming about the end of the Bitcoin.

I think a dust-proof limit should be implemented, but should be dynamic in nature, drawing its value from a series of calculations that determine, from difficulty, transactions etc. how much 1BTC is worth and what amount is trivial. A hard limit is a very bad idea, considering bitcoin's climbing value and difficulty. A few years from now 5k satoshis might be worth a considerable sum, and releasing periodic updates to shift the limit is a bad practice. Even now I think 5k satoshis is a bit too much. I'd opt for 1k.

Clearly you have not idea what decentralized currency means, look it up some time, 1 BTC will always be worth 1 BTC, it isn't tied to any one currency. This bring into another issue, how do we tell people that to think of bitcoin as bitcoin, and not as storage for dollars or yen. I mean 1BTC == 1BTC regardless of the trading.

I said how much 1BTC is worth, not how much 1BTC is worth IN RELATION TO <insert currency here>. I think the client should be able to get an idea of how much 1BTC is worth to society by looking at the difficulty, amount mined so far, average amount transacted(example: today when BTC is young 0.01 transactions are fairly common, someday when that amount will be worth a small fortune, they'll be much more rare and people will be trading amounts like 0.00001BTC) and get an idea of how much is considered to lack meaningful value and then set that as a lower limit for transactions.

But that is cause the free market deems that as the value. 1BTC value can't be gotten from how many are mine or how much the difficulty is. That is your flaw in your thinking, you think that some meaning full value comes about cause of the difficultly or how many are out there, in reality it is the free markets that deem bitcoin is the ~$100.

Well good thing there is no hard limit.  The dust limit is a variable and the default value is 5430 satoshis.  You are free to install 0.8.2 and set it to 1000 satoshis if you like.

I stopped short of giving an outright formula because I don't know how to translate this data into free market value. Clearly a 10x increase in difficulty won't be a 10x increase in value, but somebody's gotta figure it out. I support a dynamic transfer limit, and the only way BTC can figure out where to set that limit is from within its own statistics. Exactly how it would do this I do not know, but it stores a LOT of data, it can make many statistics out of this data, and interpreted in the right way, it might work.

You can for example, take a random country, of which you know nothing except for the fact that a say 80% of the transactions happening everywhere are worth around 100000 units of currency, 12% are 10000000 units, and 4% are 100000000000, and you can pretty much get an idea that that currency is most likely hyperinflated and the value of a single unit is likely nonimportant. You don't even have to know what the transactions are buying/selling.

Statistics is a flawed math system, when it comes to these types of random variables. You can't accurately predict the free market, and include that information in the blockchain. Who even knows if those people using bitcoins even take into consideration that they are pinning it to another currency. Maybe they are saying 1BTC is worth on it's own, without another currency, 3 bags of rice. You can't predict what transactions are being pinned to a currency and not, and if you did pin bitcoin protocol to another currency, then you are saying that bitcoin is indeed a medium of transfer not a currency.

The average user won't be running BitcoinQt (or any full node, most likely). Even if I set my validating node to relay non-economic (non-Bitcoin economic) transactions, it won't matter if it never gets put in a block.

I don't get what the big fuss is bout. Why not just use an alt currency?

Some of the altcoins, like litecoin, have extreme fees on microtransactions.  Just another way to solve the problem.