but we all know that hashing power == power here. What I was trying to say, is if a big mining pool changes to that and starts getting a lot of blocks then obviously there choosing to use that method of blocking dust.
HUH? Let me try to break this down: > If a big mining pool OKAY, I follow. > changes to that 0.8.2 with this change, I assume, okay > and starts getting a lot of blocks Okay, well finding blocks is just a product of hash power and luck > then obvious there Where?! > choosing to use that method of blocking dust HUH?! Running this code has nothing to do with finding blocks. I understand the words you are using but the way you are stringing them together is virtuoso rutabaga. if you understand that is it, that is all I care, I am sorry my public schooling education has failed you. |
|
|
|
The majority among those who are voting seems to think it is a good idea.
It's a good idea 39 (24.2%) It's a good idea, But not at 5430 Satoshi 9 (5.6%) 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%) It's a bad idea 57 (35.4%) It's a bad idea, It should be a lower # of btc 1 (0.6%) 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. 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  |
|
|
|
I basically said the same thing, I don't know where my mis-information is? So if the majority of miners hashing power like the change, it then sticks. ^ right there. Has nothing to do with a majority of hashing power. If, for example, 10% of hashing power were under the old rules (or some alternative anti-spam rules that still allowed very small outputs under some conditions) then you'd expect 1:10 blocks to include transactions paying the small amounts. but we all know that hashing power == power here. What I was trying to say, is if a big mining pool changes to that and starts getting a lot of blocks then obviously there choosing to use that method of blocking dust. |
|
|
|
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.
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. 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. |
|
|
|
The majority among those who are voting seems to think it is a good idea.
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? 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. |
|
|
|
Starting price lets say 10 BTC in increment's of 1
Wait your starting this at 10BTC which is currently $1,213 ? is this right? |
|
|
|
Miners running with the defaults won't mine transactions with outputs of 54µBTC but will happily accept blocks that do and nodes running with defaults won't relay them.
I basically said the same thing, I don't know where my mis-information is? I don't think this is true. If miners refuse to upgrade it won't cause a fork. It just means that if somebody DOES send a 1 satoshi transaction that it won't get into the blockchain until a miner who allows it mines a block. I don't think this is a winner take all scenario.
I didn't say it would cause a fork |
|
|
|
I have trouble understanding all this; what's the rationale behind this new patch? What would be the problem of continuing things as they are now?
And if users end up not liking the changes, can they revert back? Can the next client after 0.82 reverse these changes without dividing Bitcoin?
Short you have no control, cause it is really a mining thing. So if the majority of miners hashing power like the change, it then sticks. The only way to break revert is to get the miners to revert. |
|
|
|
I'll update to 0.8.2 !
I've upgraded my miners to the current git already. No more unspendable spam or DoS outputs relayed or stored into the blockchain by me! (I mine solo.) So who has actually been DoS by outputs I never seen anyone say anything about that. But good your solo mining does nothing so your not any threat  |
|
|
|
The majority among those who are voting seems to think it is a good idea.
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. |
|
|
|
I find it interesting that most of the loud voices are big into litecoin when litecoin's current anti-dust relay/mining policy is far more aggressive than anything proposed for Bitcoin. Litecoin, showing Bitcoin how it should be done yet again. Thank you litecoins and coblee for censoring bitcoins THANK YOU... |
|
|
|
I traded 10,000 ripples for a little over 1 BTC using bitstamp as my "base currency" or "issuer"... how do I actually withdraw those Bitcoins from my ripple wallet to my own Bitcoin wallet?
Go to bitstamp.net and I think it is deposit and they will give you link click it and then send the 1 btc to them. It will instantly show up in your account. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
BTW: If miners install the current dev team's client like you said it's essentially a vote of confidence, so what's that taking power out you talked about?
No if most of the miners want that, then that is bitcoin working correctly but it is censorship and I can't allow that. |
|
|
|
Just paying my respects to Satoshi. Great entity, great idea, sadly bitcoin is damaged and will probably die unless a hard fork happens.
Nonsense. I wish it was non-sense sadly it isn't... You are free to create your own forked version of bitcoin-qt client in five minutes and use it in the current network to broadcast/relay transactions, nobody can stop you, it's exactly what Bitcoin is all about. If some developers are able to change things in the way many people here imagined, nobody would have used Bitcoin in the first place. But miners can stop the transaction from being put into the block... and people can stop relaying the transaction. Oh, like how they have declared your block is "orphaned" from time to time? Big news. I have some other news for you: there is already a way to circumvent the current 0.8.1 hardcoded transaction fee policy without causing a hard-fork like you said, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Free_transaction_relay_policy check it out. No no no, the hard fork is so we take the power out of the current dev team... |
|
|
|
Good step towards lowering spammy transactions like SatoshiDice, which is idiot tax anyways. If you want to risk your coin for more coin, then look at an even odds bitcoin lottery, like http://www.satoshisploder.comYour creating the same exact transactions as Satoshi Dice LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO What? |
|
|
|
What the fuck is a Satoshi?
An entity / creator of bitcoins also the name of 0.00000001 Unit |
|
|
|
FUD!
You can still send a satoshi if ---
1. You mine your own block, or
2. At least one miner agrees to mine the tiny transaction for you.
Yup. Or, if in the future bitcoin's value goes way up and people turn the dust indifference parameter way down. Now this is non-sense let me get about $100,000 worth of ASIC and do that. Now it is getting crazy! Uh. A single avalon mines about a block a week... and you don't have to have even that if you can just convince some other miner to do it for you— though it might be a little hard to do that if you're trying to attack the system or force people to store random data for you. I am more against the censorship anyway |
|
|
|
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? 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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
