if you have an unspent output of 0.005 (you did have but not anymore, this is a lesson in hindsight)
you set that 0.005 output as your new input for new tx

you set 0.0001 to the intended destination as one output
you send 0.0049 to an address you own as another output

thus you get the remainder back.

then by doing this. you can then spend the 0.0049 output funds by making a new tx where
if you have an unspent output of 0.0049 (you dont, this is a lesson in hindsight)
you set that 0.005 output as your new input for new tx

you set 0.0001 to the intended destination as one output
you send 0.0048 to an address you own as another output

thus you get the remainder back.

and so on..
only problem is you dont have the 0.0049 anymore. thats gone to the mining pool as fee

if you have    0.005
wanna spend 0.0001

you have to also tell the transaction where the other 0.0049 should go, otherwise the 0.0049 is treated as the fee
eg your
1GZF75yBKtDgwCyA5pavM2Xs1tkEwVCbjz (0.005 BTC - Output) ->   1G4o1ZAfCcZ812RYpXwKR9tv4mUUMR8pDE - (Unspent) 0.0001 BTC
fee=0.0049

should be
1GZF75yBKtDgwCyA5pavM2Xs1tkEwVCbjz (0.005 BTC - Output) ->   1G4o1ZAfCcZ812RYpXwKR9tv4mUUMR8pDE - (Unspent) 0.0001 BTC
                                                                                      ->   1GZF75yBKtDgwCyA5pavM2Xs1tkEwVCbjz   - (Unspent) 0.0049 BTC
fee=0

you then lower how much you want to get returned to you to establish the fee as the missing amount your not accounting for

such as
1GZF75yBKtDgwCyA5pavM2Xs1tkEwVCbjz (0.005 BTC - Output) ->   1G4o1ZAfCcZ812RYpXwKR9tv4mUUMR8pDE - (Unspent) 0.0001 BTC
                                                                                      ->   1GZF75yBKtDgwCyA5pavM2Xs1tkEwVCbjz   - (Unspent) 0.0048 BTC

fee=0.0001

your mistake is not adding a second destination to get your change back

getting rich people together never = positive for the poor.
all they will do is find ways to mak money out of th poor but advertise it like they are 'helping'

---

until bitcoins average mainnet (onchain) tx fee is fixed (dont even bother saying LN's commercial service is the cure) bitcoin is not suitable for undeveloped countries where 5-20cents= hours of labour in those countries.

again dont try to pretend LN's commercial hubs is the cure. because its not.
and dont try to say the LN's multi-hop is the cure because its not.

LN has a small niche and is not suitable for all users.

you dont hear millions of people uploading livestreams complaining
you dont hear millions of online gamers complaining

you dont hear millions of people facetiming complaining.
you dont hear millions of people netflix viewing complaining.

yet fake doomsdays of 1gb by midnight is used to scare 5600 people.....!!!

rational 2mb soon 4mb later and growing when node users set a setting to show what they CAN COPE WITH, to grow at a capable acceptable and no issue rate.

..

"shout 1gb to make people fear 2-8mb" <- standard blockstream script
"shout alien invasion to make people fear an ant entering your house" <- standard blockstream mindset

..

also telecommunications company both landline and cellular have a five year plan. its called Fibre cable, and 5G cellular.

so by the time we get to 8mb (in years!) the speed of internet for average users will be much better than today.
after all we are not using dialup like 20 years ago.

ill emphasise it again

getting to 8mb in years..  not 1gb by midnight.
be rational, think logical, research realistically

knowing blockstream have $90mill and only a couple dozen paid devs, and over 100 unpaid interns we can assume gmaxwell is atleast a millionaire in the fiat world

ok imagine this is a ~450bye tx
*********************************************

input
signature
output

each star represents 10bytes for easy display

if you done the same tx but using segwit p2wpkh keys, the transaction looks like this
*********************************************

one thing that will blow your mind. the blue and red stars(bytes) are still transmitted physically. but at code interpretation level they are not 'counted' as going towards what goes into the base block.

but because at code level an opcode is used to flag old nodes to ignore data after purple. making it look like an anyonecanspend

the other stars (blue, red) are only looked at by new nodes.
  old nodes see:*********************************************  grey is ignored
new nodes see:*********************************************

while unconfirmed
old nodes wont morally relay or add a segwit tx and instead drop it. however a malicious actor can tweak their code to relay/force it into a oldblock. (hence why wpkh wallet key generation is not released pre activation to avoid malicious attacks)

after feature activation,
because only purple stars are counted (yet more stars are actually transmitted). this trick can allow more transactions into the base block
because they have room for 100,000stars (1mb)

so where say 2222tx's was 100k(1mb) stars. if everyone used segwit keys. becomes ~50k stars(~50%), giving ~50k(~50%) spare room in the block for more transactions
but remember the blue and red is still real data but just not 'counted' by the baseblock

this allows ~5000tx's(depending on ins and out and how many people use segwit keys) into the baseblock but the reality is the actual data transmitted is 2mb even with the baseblock still limited to 1mb

P.S whats said above should be interpretted by the concept. i used rough numbers for demo purposes. dont get knitpicky about the numbers. just learn then concept of HOW the switch around is used and HOW things are 'counted' or 'ignored' by nodes.. and HOW it differs to actual data transmitted

then look at the extra bytes added later when extra features are added.. and have a nice day

you dont understand it

segwit takes out bytes from tx data (the signature is moved), this is a temporary one time 'gesture' and only increases tx count if people move funds and use segwit keys.

but later more bytes are added to tx data.

have you even looked at how many extra bytes are needed for:
CLTV
CSV
Confidential commitments

go find that out.

ill give you a hint confidential commitments are said to be (by blockstream devs themselves) around a kilobyte.
yep they want to bloat an average tx of 450bytes to be near 1.5kb for the same 2input 2output tx

like i said.
segwit temporarily makes an average 450tx 'look like' ~230bytes being counted in the base block with the rest in the 'witness area'(still totalling 450byte TRANSMITTED)

but then LN has their features. which increase the base block txdata ABOVE ~230 (thus reducing possible tx's in the base block again)

and other blockstream features add on, will add about a kilobyte.. (once confidential payments and other features is added)

go research

lol
actually its the blockstream crew that want to increase the units of measure.. as part of their LN strategy of millisatoshi's.
look beyond what has been spoonfed to you and research

but back to the blocksize..
blockstream want to halt tx counts. at 1mb.. but bloat the DATA TRANSMITTED beyond 1mb.
they as a fake gesture suggest their new 'weight' buzzword as part of segwit allows 2.1x transactions. but as fast as people switch to segwit keypairs blockstream are bloating up transactions with CLTV bytes of data and CSV bytes of data and confidential commitment kilobytes of data.

so a one time hope of 2500tx/block->4500tx/block.. soon goes back down to 2500tx/block once they add the features.. but the DATA TRANSMITTED goes up to 4mb/block

EG 2500tx:1mb      to    4500tx:2.1mb   <-blockstream (2017)
EG 4500tx:2.1mb   to    2500tx:4mb   <-blockstream (2019)

EG 2500tx:1mb    to      5000tx:2mb   <-community desire (2017)
EG 5000tx:2mb    to     10000tx:4mb   <-community desire (2019)

think rationally..
natural scaled and copable growth has been halted using fears of "gigabyte blocks by midnight" fake scare doomsday propaganda.

the simple fact is. if a node cant cope with a larger size they wont set their dynamic setting above what they can cope with. and if the majority of nodes cant cope it wont change. and pools that try to force it will just get their attempt orphaned.

learn consensus, it will help you.

even core have publicly said 8mb is safe but they prefer 4mb.. to be ultra safe.. so no actual reason to hold the base block at 1mb

getting to 2mb or 4mb or 8mb is not going to be an overnight thing. its going to be a risk averting curve that naturally progresses over time.

stop reading the fake doomsdays of 1gb blocks by midnight. as an excuse to stop rational smaller growth over natural and rational time.

they are scaring you with wild numbers, because they dont want you knowing that rational and natural numbers can work. they want to halt natural and rational growth to force you into commercialised LN Hubs so they can repay their $90m debt from investors.
they care less about bitcoin and only care about their investment contract,

just look beyond the doomsday rhetoric told to you by the guys devoted to blockstream and look for the truth behind their propaganda
.. but i guess like all the other blockstream sheep. you wont research it. you will just "trust" them on face value.

here is the blockstream rhetoric simplified.
"dont think about the blue line or choose the blue line because we want to scare you with a fake red line to push people into a new network that has commercialised hubs"

you have cabin fever. your reading prepared scripts from a group of people that want centralisation and commercial services to own bitcoin.

not quite.

when the consensus is reached to go to say 2mb block buffer (acceptable limit of nodes)
pools will then say the maximum they will ever make is 2mb.. but
here is the kicker
pools will dip thir toe in the water by making a block that is just a tad bit more than 1mb. say 1.001mb just to see the orphan risks and also to see if any bugs pop up.. such as the 500kb bug Sipa introduced in 2013..

if the orphan rate is not noticeable and no drama is caused, the pools will test a little more.

this is the safe rational and natural path to do.

but dont worry about bottlenecking. they wont take 8 years to get to the 2mb 'full' limit. the progress to 2mb will be sooner.

eg if they stepped up by an extra 10kb per block. they could get to 2mb 'full' in just 3 days, safely evaluating the orphan bug risks
or if actual transaction demand per block was only 1.2mb to get everyone in.. it can have blocks have the 2mb limit but blocks only with 1.2mb due to demand only needing 1.2mb and slowly grow as demand grows.

its not a straight near vertical line like the op thinks.. its a curve

ill keep this short



the red line is the OP's view of the future.

the blue area is the reality of past present and future

if there was a thing that required people to burn coins.. exchanges would instantly stop trading before the message circled around to everyone.
so instantly this stops 3letter agencies profiting.

the exchanges wont accept bitcoin deposits. much like the 2013 db drama sipa created with his bug.. exchanges just halted trading.


next part...why 'burn coins??.. seems like a fools errand

afterall how would you 'burn' coins.
if any public key could be bruteforced because all privkeys were available to a 3letter agency. then any 'bticoin eater' public key you sent them to could be bruteforced and funds taken out.

ultimately there is nothing you can do as revenge

at best. to mitigate yourself as a possible victim. you would not have your stash on a single key. that way it wont show up as you being on the richlist for you to be targetted so soon/if at all.

i just see no point in burning coins by sending them to a bitcoin eater address if the agency has a privkey for all known addresses containing funds

i was talking more about someone spending real funds repeatedly onchain(confirmed). every block.

what your describing is a malicious party trying to DDos your node with random data.

so your saying bitcoins problem is that users are not using an altcoin...
much like: a cars problem is that people are not using a train..

see the logic problem of your statement.

if we want to strengthen bitcoin we dont suggest people should use some a different network thats not permissionless nor immutable, and where this other network allows coins to be refunded(csv) even after settlement confirmation simply because they have not matured(cltv) for the weeks maturity

but those 'pushing' are in the same camp, they are his colleagues. infact he is Sipa's boss.. which was the other point rawdog was highlighting afterwards that gmaxwell can still control things.
afterall adam back is also pulling the strings even while pretending he does not pull or push..

commits and merges are 2 different things. but Rawdog said revoke maxwells commit access.. not merge access.. commit.
you replied that he already lost his commit access.. again not merge.. commit.

i replied to show he does still have commit access.. not merge.. commit.

so dont twist it like it was always about merge... when it clearly said commit by rawdog, YOU, twice.. and me.

yea he doesnt have merge status. thats something else.. dont divert the point.
but now you know he has commit access and always had it.. rawdogs point about taking maxwells commit access still has relevance again.

in the last year the only month he did not 'commit' was march.. he must of taken a vacation that month

in 2009-2013 people used sourceforge and then github to openly submit proposals.

this has then been sidelined in 2013+ requiring submitting a proposal to a mailing list to have it vetted first.
then a new layer was added where it needed to be discussed in IRC or the forum before being worthy of catching peoples eye on the mailing list.

its no longer open communication but a one way street with regular checkpoints and guards