Proof of existence on the block chain. And actually I consider the lion share of my project (see my signature) a decoder not the encoder. I have been monitoring the bitcoin's block chain for human readable text messages and JPG images for nearly 2 years now. The decoding service is not creating any UTXOs. Only the encoding service is creating them and this is up to each user's own moral standards. I am planning to switch to OP_RETURN soon, or at least have this as an alternative option for moralfags those who need it. (edit: since I received a warning from some moderator I don't no longer know what is allowed and what is not, I must admit it's getting Nazi down here but I think I can cooperate)


You are right. In fact I am totally on your side in this. I also hate this loophole and I wish it got fixed somehow. I hate the idea of block chain growing into infinity. And with my actions I hope to draw enough attention on the issue that it actually gets resolved before a malicious entity finds a way to destroy bitcoin using the same loophole. Also, so far my services have not created any noticeable pollution. It's still just a fun educational experiment. For that reason I urge you not to be too mad at me. Also, satoshi nakamoto himself used the block chain in this "abusive" manner by embedding a message for the bankers in the first block. If satoshi didn't want the block chain to be used for other activities than purely monetary transactions then why on earth did he do it? That was a rhetorical question, no need to answer

Hey just because I have my ways with the Bitcoin's block chain right now does not mean I want it to remain that way. There are tons of shitcoins whose block chain I can put into "good use" (should it become irrational with Bitcoin for whatever reason). And again, you're using the word "abuse" on me even though it is not an abuse. It is a very delicate and special form of steganography that I am involved in. And even then, it's pointless to argue about whether it is an abuse or not because all arguments for and against it will always remain subjective and very personal. So we might as well as drop the case. Fact is that bitcoin's block chain is most famous for being an immutable database guarded by the world's most powerful computing network. For that very reason it is an excellent place to store proof-of-existence hashes. Now you call it abusive. I call it ingenious. You want to fight to death over that?

Ok now we're talking. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, it was a joke. I was ranting and raving not because I hate you but because that's how you get attention in the jungle (Internet).

And I still think that Bitcoin has the theoretical capabilities of dealing with UTXOs on the protocol level without relying on people's good will. For example, implement circular block chain so that older TXs would get thrown away no matter how much coins were left unspent. Also, I would advocate introducing a hybrid PoS/PoW model to bitcoin to boost the full node count and ease the abyss between stakeholders and miners. Right now miners have the ultimate power of writing whatever arbitrary data they want in block headers but I also want to have access to that power without owning an ASIC farm. I want to gain access to that power by holding a shit load of bitcoins. And that would be more fair because thanks to people like me (bitcoin hoarders) it has such a high value in the first place. Miners are bad for the price because they dump the coins but minters are good for the price because they hoard coins to mint more stakes.

Boy what a bad loser you are. End users will read these notes:
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.1

PERIOD, you lost the debate, now get back to work

BTW, you are barking at the wrong tree. I'm not complaining about dust threshold being too high. I am complaining about your incompetence of not being able to insert such an important change into the release notes meant for the end users.

Let me say it again if you still didn't get it --- I LIKE LARGE DUST THRESHOLD BECAUSE I HATE STRESS TESTS AND TX SPAM. So stop portraying me as the bad guy, I am not the stress tester, I am not abuser, I am not the enemy of Bitcoin.

You are misinterpreting (perhaps deliberately) my previous post and your answers only reflect your egomania. I don't think there will ever be a reasonable answer from you in this topic. People full of self-importance are always unable to admit their own flaws because they simply refuse to consider the possibility and it's not even their fault. It's how human mind operates. As species we collectively refuse to accept possibilities that turn our world upside down and thus shatter our egos. Your greatest enemy is inside of you. Be aware of its presence because only then you can sometimes be successful in defeating it.


This is just too good to be left unanswered. You are making me laugh and here's why. You are comparing Bitcoin to our archaic legal system and expect there to be an analogy. For such a world view you should be kicked out from the dev team immediately. You have failed to understand that the brilliance of Bitcoin is the fact that it does not need men with guns backing it up. It is designed to operate without relying on the assumption that its users have high moral standards and righteous intentions. The protocol has to deal with spammers, abusers and stress testers. There are programmatic ways to enforce it and you are just being a lazy programmer who thinks it would be easier to kindly ask anonymous bitcoin users not to generate massive amounts of UTXOs rather than to implement code that solves the issue on the protocol level. If you now say that dust threshold is meant to defend against UTXOs then stop complaining about people who make UTXOs and are willing to pay the price (whatever it is). It's free market.

Ok fine. I'm not into pointing fingers anyway. Stuff like that happens, I'm a developer myself, I know. The monetary loss due to this was perhaps 0.5$ in my situation. And the idea of increasing the minimum acceptable output amount is also good, even though it was badly broadcast this time. I tried restarting my node with different minrelaytxfee values and the difference was humongous. With 0.00001 I had 20k unconfirmed TXs. I increased that number to 0.00003 and the number of unconfirmed TXs dropped below 10. This clearly eliminates the "stress test" attack vector on the Bitcoin's network. I hated it.

WTF are you talking about? What you might see as abusive is by no means an objective evaluation of the situation. Keep your petty feelings to yourself. As a core developer you should not allow yourself to give in to your emotions. It is your job to find a solution to the UTXOs because that number will increase EITHER WAY. With or without abuse.


FALSE. Stop lying in my face. When I searched the release notes there were no indication to the minrelaytxfee config parameter and the default value that might have changed as a result. It is pathetic to see you try to cover up this mess. Be an adult and admit that the release notes were lacking that info.


So now you're trying to put all the blame on me even though my activities have nothing to do with the fact that you missed an important part from the release notes. What is more, you fail to remain neutral and objective and again, give in to your petty childish emotions. Calling my activities vicious?! Be grateful to me for highlighting the UTXOs issue because when a malicious user starts to abuse this vulnerability you will not have a chance for a reasonable debate. I like bitcoin and I want it to evolve over time, I am willing to cooperate because I am at your side (in case you are on evolving Bitcoin's side, of course).

That's one way to look at it. But it's still subjective. I've been in debate about it so many times. A really short counter argument would be that it's not "worse" until it increases the utility and thus the intrinsic value of bitcoin. It is worse when it is part of an attack on the bitcoin network.

Another really good point that was brought out in a previous discussion about the UTXO issue is that the Bitcoin network has to deal with it one way or another. Human moral cannot be relied on. If UTXOs are bitcoin's vulnerability then some day someone may want to exploit that vulnerability to bring the network to its knees. What is more, if I wanted to use that attack vector, I would generate the UTXO private keys deterministically so that in the end I could even get my attack money back.


What do you mean by being more vocal next time before the fact? I just discovered this mess-up yesterday the hard way. My customers lost their money because of that without getting any service. Next time I won't upgrade my bitcoin wallet, period. At least that's what I feel like doing. Obviously I will upgrade if I have to, for some really good reasons.

Those UTXOs are unspendable.

yeah, I need as small as possible. Ideally I would pay a little extra fee to the miner in order to have them confirm my tx that has less than usual outputs. both parties would win from this. the miner gets a bigger fee and I'd have the possibility to send a smaller amount of bitcoins per output.

I guess it's a tough problem then. I need a programmatic solution. So that the program could detect and overcome the issue of nodes not relaying its transactions. For now 0.00001 should work but if it suddenly stops working in the future then I will get in trouble. How would you go about it? If the TX has not been confirmed in 60 minutes then somehow withdraw it, increase the fee and make a whole new TX? Actually I wouldn't be able to make a new TX because it will probably require more funds than initially planned. Has anyone else thought of this?

You're right. With that old default of 0.00001, the minimum output size is 0.00000546 satoshis. Now this leads to me a tough question -- how to determine the smallest possible value for that parameter that is still safe to use in a sense that neighbouring nodes will relay it. Is 0.00001 still safe to use? How long will it be safe to use? What's the best practice for developers when solving this problem?

This seemed to provide a solution to my problem. Any ideas what the default minrelaytxfee was in 0.11.0 ? When I set it to 0.00000001 the minimal amount I was able to send was 3 satoshis. How to get 546 as it was in previous version?

Thanks a lot bitcoin developers for screwing my application by changing the minimum output amount YET AGAIN. You should have at least mentioned it in the changelog or under the notable changes section:
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.1

That's right, instead of 540 satoshis the bitcoin-core now won't allow outputs smaller than 2730 satoshis. This is starting to piss me off because every time you change it I must also change my program logic. If you have to do it then at least make it possible to request the current minimal dust threshold with an RPC.

Since this is such a bullshit change, I hereby spawn a parallel conversation: should developers not upgrade their bitcoin-core to 0.11.1 because of this? So that we could still make smaller output transactions? OR perhaps I should modify the source code of bitcoin-core to deliberately allow smaller amounts. It's up to miners anyway, so stop putting this crap into bitcoin-core if it can be so easily evaded.

in the meanwhile we all know that carbon emission is not doing shit to the climate and the global warming is all a big scam to fill the pockets of big corporations.

Volume speaks for itself. Look at it. No such green volume has happened since the last bubble. Something is going on, I tell you h'wat. The feds might be pumping the price before the auction, but either way, something strange is going on and it's bullish. Think of it like that --- most of the time, bitcoin's price is falling from its last ATH. When it's not falling, it is usually in a bubble. Right now we have stopped falling. From the latter we can deduce that it must be the beginning of the next bubble.

it will consolidate at 666$ before going for 1777$

Bitcoin bubble 2015. It has begun.

That would be great. I would still call it the original bitcoin because the original bitcoin was meant to be further developed by the community. Chainging from PoW to PoS is a community development.

nah, it's heading for the 400$

Even if the goverments forbade bitcoin due to the global warming hoax, peercoin would take its place over night. There is no going back from cryptocurrencies. This is the new asset class and I am going to be soooo rich, with or without carbon emission.