I dont think anyone is working with Fairbrix any longer. Coblee moved onto litecoin so unless someone forks litecoin's code I dont think this will be patched..

TBX is in the same boat. Lolcust will need to update it though i havent seen any updates at all.

when i try to send small donation to coblee i get : error: {"code":-4,"message":"Error: Transaction creation failed  "}
the goal is to empty out the old wallet.dat cause its over 51 Mb in size with only small amount in it because of the nasty spamming

The discussion is related to a current issue with Litecoin, the growing block size.

Because they already run new code with the amount restriction in it? A new version will be released, then everybody has the fix.

Thanks for fast response 
So, basically, I was right: 100LTC with 6 confirmations are free of fee 

And what about:
http://litecoin.kicks-ass.org/graphs/graphs.html
and
http://allchains.info/

I think they need our help to back online.... 

Every transaction above 100 LTC is high priority and free  
There was no premine so no faucet, sorry....
And it WAS Design contest so please read thread up  

PS. Background is transparent and it represents lightness of Litecoin  

Remote coin kill switch? So 1 person decides about protocol changes, and that I can't use my coins anymore? Seems like some things that people criticized about SC2 are now happening at LTC 

But I know, that's a totally different story...

If you really need to spend those coins, you can start the client with "-mininput=0.00000001"

The problem has already been caused - it seems that the attack was smarter than anyone realised (or more likely was smarter by mistake)
Many people now have 1000's (I have 6832) of tiny transactions that they cannot spend and need to be avoided or ignored for eternity.
They also exist in the block chain and will never disappear.

Here's the fix: https://github.com/coblee/litecoin/commit/f6fdedcf732265391eebbba48e8c537077b10f01

Windows binary coming up shortly.

For those of you that have received dust spam (transactions with 0.00000001 ltc other tiny amounts), you may have trouble sending your coins. If you try to send coins, your client might be stuck trying to sort through all those transactions to come up with a list of inputs. ArtForz made a simple suggestion to have the create transaction code ignore transactions below a certain user-configurable amount. I will implement this soon and release a new client. Stay tuned.

I checked in code to deal with the dust spam: https://github.com/coblee/litecoin/commit/ee851e8cbdd74e8f0fe86613aa93f8c598ab88b4
Basically this changes the transaction relay fee to the same 0.1 LTC base transaction fee. And it adds a base fee for each output less than 0.01 LTC.

Please update to the latest code. As more users update, it will be harder for the spam to get to the old unupdated miners that mine the blocks with this spam. Of course, after updating, your mined blocks won't include this spam.

Note that this does not prevent the spammer to send thousands of 0.01 LTC outputs to himself or others. But this reduces dust spam, where people have to spend work dealing with tiny transactions that aren't worth much. If the spammers sends out 0.01 LTC spams to others, then at least he's also losing significant coins that way. If he sends it to himself, he'd have to deal with a bloated wallet and a slow client trying to deal with those transactions. So win/win.

Windows binary coming soon.

I like the idea of charging higher fees for lots of small outputs, however, we risk capturing small-but-useful transactions in the mix.  I also want to have fee formulas we can keep instead of temporarily changing them and planning on changing them back.  Instead of two tiers we could have three with only the lowest tier getting charged per-output fees
large value = no fee
small value = .1 fee per transaction
very small value = .1 fee per output

Make "very small" be 10% of small and all these too small to be useful even when aggregated transactions are really expensive, but leaves open the possibility of small but potentially useful transactions (like paypershare mining)

If we are making the fees additive, we'd want to remove the "if (nMinFee < nBaseFee)" check so people can't escape the per txout fee by making the block larger.

We can also have a higher fee for large-sized transactions.
From:        int64 nMinFee = (1 + (int64)nBytes / 1000) * nBaseFee;
To:          int64 nMinFee = (1 + (int64)nBytes /  500) * nBaseFee;

            BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, vout) {
                if (txout.nValue < (CENT/10))
                    nMinFee += nBaseFee;
                else if ((txout.nValue < CENT) && (nMinFee < nBaseFee))
                    nMinFee = nBaseFee;
            }

Why not cap fees where they are right now and use formula to decrease them as difficulty rises.  With current fee structure spamming would only make sense if value of LTC fell 90% or so.  If LTC value has fallen that much the risk of fees being too low are likely not really a significant concern.

It may be easier to convince people fees can only fall than fees can rise and fall but it is unlikely they will rise.

Transaction and relay fees:
- base fee = 0.1 / difficulty
- capped at 0.1 LTC
- round to 1 significant digit

With the current difficulty at 0.63769 (0.1 / 0.63769 = 0.156816), the fee is capped at 0.1 LTC.
If the network doubles and difficulty doubles to 1.27538 (0.1 / 1.27538 = 0.078408), the fee will be reduced to 0.08 LTC.
If the difficulty increases tenfold to 6.3769 (0.1 / 6.3769 = 0.0156816), the fee will be reduced to 0.02 LTC.