I think Hal makes more sense to honor as a unit.
Fully agree with that, no disrespect to Gavin. Me as well. Hmmmm... What do you all think about milliBTC also being referred to as "Finneys"? Hal Finney was on the receiving end of the first BTC transaction from Satoshi. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0Perhaps 100 Satoshi's should be a Fin? But that would collide with a natural SI prefix (micro)...may be 1k Satoshi's = 1 Fin? |
|
|
|
|
You're idea is a very good one. Very good when you consider what Mike has done with his Casascius password software (which lets you share a private key that is password protected with a password of your choosing).
You should PM Casascius if you are serious about making money with this idea. He's got experience. I'd buy one of these...when my wife and I were married, we got a 3D photo of us engraved in a clear plastic cube. It would work well for provate keys. We were married over 8 years ago, so the technology ain't new.
|
|
|
|
You guys continue refusing to implement solutions useful to all of us and then impose arbitrary limits in the client? Take for example the interface to limit "dust" by user choice. You're linking to a pull request that implements transaction blacklisting by address. The recent dust output stuff is configurable. I can only speculate why you would misrepresent things so… Ah, so we get to configure the already famous patch? I gave up on the address blacklisting, which I don't see elegant but rather desperate solution. Btw, you are not who decides on who I ignore in RL or the bitcoin network, and how would you know anyway? Can you guess my ignore list on this forum? I can only read one entry on the list: bg002h. Retarded comments like your thoughtless dribble here wastes my time. Since I haven't got much time, I'm gonna extrapolate and presume you're existence on these forums is not worth my notice. |
|
|
|
|
I think Hal makes more sense to honor as a unit.
|
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Woohoo. Great idea and thanks!
|
|
|
|
+1 Never thought of agree with Gweedo on something though :-) |
|
|
|
If you want to spend hours and hours curating large sets of addresses containing trivial sums of cash, you're crazy. In fact, it will cost you a bundle to do so, patch or no patch. The dust issue is supposed to be eliminated by transaction fees...but, transaction fees (which IMHO are too high, but that's up to the miners)
Exactly. 0.8.2 will actually lower the base fee for low priority transactions (well, unless its decided to undo this, I guess), but then does this to prevent that change from further opening the floodgates to non-currency transactions. Well that is clever. Two birds with one stone. I'm glad there are people smarter than me thinking this through. I do wish someone would invent anti hysteria cream...perhaps it's just plain old teenager angst run amok, but, people seem to think something more than just "ho-hum" is going on. It's kind of a big yawner (unless you're SD or misinformed)... |
|
|
|
noob question
so imagine a miner that accepts in a 0.00000020 transaction.. the block gets solved and them pushed out to the network. imagine of 51% of the nodes are the new version that doesn't like small transactions.
would that create another fork where it doesn't get confirmed or the number of confirms never get above 1 confirm?
My understanding is: no, it won't fork. Anyone who wants their mining node to behave like it did yesterday can go ahead and include no value transactions...and non-mining nodes can broadcast such transactions, but, everyone who upgrades won't relay those transactions or attempt to put them in a block. |
|
|
|
I'm interested in knowing the answer to this as well.
Me too. I think they could, but, it won't show up in your wallet as a transaction. That makes it the users job to go get the confirmation of loss (as if the lack of a win doesn't make that clear, but, whatever). Alternatively, SD could write their own client or web wallet or anything that monitors for those notifications...but, they haven't. I'm not sure if they're just not so bright, too busy, or they want to push the limits of Bitcoin before some one else more malignant decides to do it. |
|
|
|
The real problem with blocking "dust" transactions is that it makes it more difficult to develop colored coin infrastructure using bitcoin. And to me, that is the most powerful application of decentralized payment networks. Imposing a barrier to developing that killer app on btc means that it will be developed first, or at least much more fluently, on another network or alt chain. I don't really think it's necessary to boycott btc client upgrades though. The market will sort out whether this is the killer app that I predict, or whether bitcoin is best used as a store of value as opposed to a payment network.
Ripple? |
|
|
|
|
If you want to spend hours and hours curating large sets of addresses containing trivial sums of cash, you're crazy. In fact, it will cost you a bundle to do so, patch or no patch. The dust issue is supposed to be eliminated by transaction fees...but, transaction fees (which IMHO are too high, but that's up to the miners) aren't high enough to make it truly expensive to stuff the block chain with large amounts of tiny transactions (bear in mind that transactions can also carry arbitrary text too).
Thus, any jerk with $100 can insert text into the block chain that is illegal is some jurisdictions. I mean, I don't live in a country where the government might kill me because I have a file on my computer that say "to hell with {insert religious figure}," but there probably are Bitcoin users who do.
The only people really affected by this patch are those using the blockchain for non-economic purposes (like Satoshi Dice saying, sorry, you lost...that's just transmitting information, nothing of current or relative value exchanges hands).
I think a wiser approach (which is being debated by the devs) would be something like tying the dust definition to the size of a transaction fee. Also, they can undo this change in the future, so keep your worthless SD transactions safe...someday you might be able to spend them in an economic manner.
|
|
|
|
|
Voted x 6
1GCDzqmX2Cf513E8NeThNHxiYEivU1Chhe
@doctorgoss
|
|
|
|
So now two of the board members are suing, the development team is censoring the press list and so many more acts against bitcoin. I think it is time that the foundation folds, it is literally imploding on it's self.
I personality think they can rebuild it wouldn't be easy but could be done. First order of business, cut out the development team the foundation can't work with a team of people who are power hungry. In the coming years, maybe even months I see more isolation from the development team and the community.
Second, they have to do a huge reorganization of the board structure. Gavin should hold no powers, Peter and Mark need there powers (not there membership) taken away. I think one of the biggest problems with the foundation is two many of the higher members, also own successful businesses leaving very little time for the foundation. While certain bitcoin businesses should be clearly represented in the foundation, they shouldn't hold a similar level of power. They should be included on high priority votes.
They really need to get their act together...
Why did I unignore? My bad. |
|
|
|
|
I fear more the unintended network split that doesn't get detected quickly by happenstance (we got kinda lucky recently). De-splitting the network is painful and might not always work out as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup -- royal we without question. That is the normal way to write formal scientific publications.
|
|
|
|
|
How about asking theymos for a subforum?
I'm all for us pooling our ideas and resources.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a big donation. The Bitcoin foundation fee is considerably less.
|
|
|
|
|
This would take some of the pressure off of the max block size limit issue and make it easier for regular people to run validating nodes. This has the disadvantage of merely evolving our banking system rather than revolutionizing it. It also seems hard to me for the bitbanks to have much motivation to provide these services without being able to makeover by lending (hard to lend when price is unstable).
|
|
|
|
Thanks for posting this. Until I have good reason to do otherwise, this, my first Keiser experience, will also be my last. That would be too far. He's a crazy-assed megalomaniac and shameless entertainer, but there is method to the madness, he's right about a lot of things where most others are wrong, & he's is worth keeping an eye on for several reasons. Just take everything with a healthy dose of salt. Shameless is right. He sounds much more intelligent and reasonable here: http://rt.com/op-edge/if-bitcoin-exchanges-shut-down-518/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
