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.
I just read https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit. Why can't you just use small transactions instead of dust below the threashold? What if tomorrow the devs again decide to raise the minimum limit? What will happen to earlier colored coins? There is no set minimum only a default. Lower the min fee to relay setting for your node (default is 0.1 mBTC in 0.8.2) and you lower the dust threshold (54.3% of prior value). If enough miners and relay nodes operate with a lower value it doesn't really matter what the default is. However the trend has been that the min fee has gone DOWN (in nominal terms) over time due to the deflationary nature of Bitcoin and the rising exchange rate. I think you under estimate the power of defaults. Nobody changes the default, and no one was ever going to change the default. This is a consequential change, because one of the key qualities of bitcoin is divisibility. This change shatters divisibility. Colored coin people also suffered, but they are a minority. The gain was that all the spam from satoshi dice, which is considerable, was lessened. It's all about pros and cons. In my view this was satoshi's project, and now it's gavins. Huge shoes to fill, but he's done a great job so far. We should however be vigilant over future changes, in a reasoned way, and I think that's exactly what the core dev team want to happen. |
|
|
|
And yet, pointedly, the question was not answered. Did you try following the link? thinkcomp @ reddit ... |
|
|
|
Of course there is no consequence for the state getting it wrong. If the state had to pay costs + 20% + $5,000 punitive penalty for any improper notice there would be a lot less improper notices. Then again it costs the state absolutely nothing. Hell they could send a cease and desist to every human being in the country and all it would cost is the taxpayers of CA slightly more taxes.
The people pay the costs. Now we need to decide whether that's a good use of our funds ... and have that view represented. That's how democracy works. |
|
|
|
OK thanks ... some comment in reddit: "(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business..."
The question then becomes whether the Bitcoin Foundation has any "control" or "direction" over its members and/or affiliates, who are most clearly in violation of the law under section (b). These words are vague. It could be argued that it does.
There is an extremely high chance that people will go to jail over this whether people here think it's stupid or not. Who, precisely, wrote that comment? And is that author presently suing a bunch of bitcoin companies? I posted the full text in a new thread... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=242113.0 |
|
|
|
From Hacker News ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5927892): Most of the comments here are not particularly well-informed and should be ignored. Yes, the Bitcoin Foundation (probably--I don't know anything about them other than what I've read) isn't strictly speaking a money transmitter. Yes, the California Department of Financial Institutions--which will cease to exist in 7 days when it gets merged into the California Department of Corporations--is totally ignorant of Bitcoin. But they know the law pretty well. Especially the one that they wrote. (See the name Robert Venchiarutti on the letter? He's really the one behind it. The DFI lawyers just do what they're told. They don't even like the law. Venchiarutti actually wrote it, with the help of TMSRT's lobbyists.) That being said, the law to worry about here isn't even the one cited. It is, as I've stated quite frequently, 18 U.S.C. § 1960 ( http://www.plainsite.org/laws/index.html?id=14426). And that law says that you don't have to be a money transmitter to get a letter such as the one received by the Bitcoin Foundation ( http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/149335233?access_key=key-2lnhtenm4qb1mydngxac&allow_share=false&show_recommendations=false). "(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business..." The question then becomes whether the Bitcoin Foundation has any "control" or "direction" over its members and/or affiliates, who are most clearly in violation of the law under section (b). These words are vague. It could be argued that it does. There is an extremely high chance that people will go to jail over this whether people here think it's stupid or not. It's too bad no one took me seriously when I pointed out that the MTA was going to cause problems two years ago. I've been doing the industry's dirty work ever since. It would have been a lot faster and easier with some help. Now we all have to hope that my constitutional challenge ( http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056) is going to save the day. And it might, but that day may be pretty far off in the future at the current rate. Meanwhile, everyone should really be freaking out over AB 786 ( http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB786), presently before the California Senate, which makes the MTA worse than it already is by giving Robert Venchiarutti even more power. I've been successful in removing the clause that created a new thought crime, but the rest is still pretty bad--unless you're a payroll company. Amazing what lobbying can do. If you want to help, click on the "Comments to Author" tab at the link above, register with the State of California, and tell Assemblyman Dickinson that the MTA should be repealed for all of the reasons I outline at https://s.facecash.com/legal/20130225.packetnumbered.pdf: its overly broad scope, inability to sensibly regulate mobile technology, and unconstitutional nature. Money transmission takes place over the internet, which is in the domain of the federal government, not the states. See /ALA v. Pataki/, 969 F.Supp. 160 (1997), http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1017409488915582.... Also CC: Eileen Newhall eileen.newhall@sen.ca.gov, Mark Farouk mark.farouk@asm.ca.gov, Senator Jerry Hill jerry.hill@sen.ca.gov, Marc Hershman marc.hershman@sen.ca.gov, and BCC me: Aaron Greenspan aarong@thinkcomputer.com. If you live in California make sure to say where. Be polite. Reading material: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5308013Is this for real or FUD? |
|
|
|
Did anyone consider that 'transmitting' money to their employees without the correct paperwork could trigger a cease and desist?
First of all "paying wage" to own employees (in fiat/bitcoin/bananas/oranges) is not "money transmitting service". Proper paperwork is a must of course even with bananas payment. OK thanks ... some comment in reddit: "(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business..."
The question then becomes whether the Bitcoin Foundation has any "control" or "direction" over its members and/or affiliates, who are most clearly in violation of the law under section (b). These words are vague. It could be argued that it does.
There is an extremely high chance that people will go to jail over this whether people here think it's stupid or not. |
|
|
|
This is big. Why is this news only leaking out now  According to Patrick Murck, the Bitcoin Foundation only received the letter last week. Did anyone consider that 'transmitting' money to their employees without the correct paperwork could trigger a cease and desist? |
|
|
|
The government is confused, nothing to see here.
After reading the C and D letter, I am actually convinced that it's more of the boilerplate type that orgs like RIAA/MPAA throws at everybody "just in case", no substantial evidence of breaking any law/regulation is provided in the letter, neither any particular activity involving the Foundation that is considered illegal.
Could be any number of reasons, let's not jump to conclusions. One thing that came up in a previous thread is the the foundation lists Satoshi as one of the founders, whereas it seems to be misleading. The foundation could easily have been engaged in activity that it should not. I'm not saying California is correct either tho... Let's find out the details of the case. |
|
|
|
It's just some idiot government critter thinking the foundation is something like "Bitcoin Corporation".
Correct. It would be fun watching the foundation be disbanded anyway.
Most of the forum idiots here do not seem to realize that the Bitcoin Foundation is taking slings and arrows on behalf of others, fighting for bitcoin acceptance. When you fight for bitcoin, people fight back. It would be a loss for all if the Bitcoin Foundation goes away. You cant possibly make that assertion in an unbiased way as the foundation pay the core development team. There's pros and cons. The US conference I thought was fantastic. But the foundation introduces a central point of failure. It's way to early to say whether it is a loss or a gain, especially if they are breaking the law. |
|
|
|
I was thinking about joining this ... but if they are breaking the law, that's a disincentive. Perhaps we should find a way to give donations without going through a third party ... |
|
|
|
i dont like to be dragged into these identity threads but many have asked me for my input..
so here goes
Tatsuaki Okamoto is not the guy that alongside gavin andressen helped program early bitcoin. due to factors such as Tatsuaki Okamoto is very much american english and the guy gavin spoke to is very much british english.
that being said...
there is nothing stopping a think tank of people before 2009 to have got together and combined their idea's into a final paper. and then combined their names into one pseudonym
maybe the english guy that helped finalise the collectives idea's into a white paper and then progressed it into helping gavin.. was called:
Satsuya(shortened to Sat)
another was called
Nobutaka (shortened to Naka)
another was called
Nobuyoshi (shortened to oshi)
and of course
Tatsuaki Okamoto(shortened to moto)
combining to be sat - oshi naka - moto.
where as i said above. Tatsuaki Okamoto moved onto other things but one of the other 3 that has a british English based understanding went on to continue the work along side gavin.
now thats over with.. can we all try putting in as much effort into expanding bitcoin from a business prospective and use your time productively.
you can spend 20 years finding out who it is.. just for you to meet them and in 3 seconds they say "nope, not me, sorry" and your no where closer to solving the puzzle
Lol you make is sound like satoshi was gavin's side kick. I dont recall you being around in the early days, but interesting speculation ... |
|
|
|
I am curious about the following comment: First of all, I know very little about the foundation, but I found the US conference *fantastic*. My understanding is that the community has mixed feelings about the foundation, but I could be wrong. I'm not currently a foundation member, but I'm thinking about it. I'd like to understand the motivation here ... |
|
|
|
3) Alt coins could become very similar to BTC, and can be easily created
This is precisely why BTC has ZERO INTRINSIC VALUE. people often say that BTC is valuable because I can transfer and spend it in ways that other currencies don't offer, however nothing is preventing me from making an ALTCHAIN and providing this same exact intrinsic value for presumably any price. A couple of things to consider. Bitcoin is a brand, and a valuable one. Satoshi said bitcoin is a collectible. I think there is some intrinsic value there. |
|
|
|
It tries to stop you from being able to send people amounts that are so small, that it costs the person receiving it more money to spend then what you sent them. To say it again, It costs them more money then you sent them.
Except it doesn't and you can easily send transactions that use 1 satoshi as the fee (per thousand bytes) using the standard bitcoin-qt client. It may take a day or two to confirm but they always go through eventually. Maybe in some future world you'll be right but as for now you are not. You cant send a tx where the output is less than the new limit. The new limit are based on developer estimates of cost. But they have unintended consequences, for example, if you had made a business in colored coins, this change may hit you hard. |
|
|
|
Re 2) above: promises for gold, say, aren't as good as actual gold. Which would you prefer? The only reason the fiat and promissory systems have been able to develop as they have is that gold and silver are a pain to carry about.
I can start my own cryptocurrency with its own genesis block at any time - let's call it Spitcoin, say - but that doesn't make it an expansion to the bitcoin money supply, any more than if you take rocks from your back yard, paint them yellow and call them "gald"...
This is true, but look how gold is traded. Promises for gold are 10+ times more numerous than the actual physical gold supply. It wouldn't be if there were a blockchain for gold. Perhaps, though it's hard to conceive of even what a block chain for gold might mean. There's three good reasons to make transactions "off block" 1) Translate your trust into new money 2) You dont have to pay the tx fee, so this allows high volume 3) Instant confirms are possible |
|
|
|
There are like 608 sites now that offer bitcoin coupons.
What's to stop one of these from just making coupons... Kind of like how the feds do it. Its always backed by coin, but if everyone pulls out there wont be enough.
Sure, that's called a "short squeeze". But you can settle in cash. So instead of me giving you your 10 coins i could give you say $1200 No that's called an IOU, like printing money only generating it. Exactly yes. So a trusted third party can lever up the money supply using IOUs. The short squeeze occurs if they dont have enough bitcoins to pay all the IOUs. But that's exactly how the current system works with fractional reserve banking. |
|
|
|
There are like 608 sites now that offer bitcoin coupons.
What's to stop one of these from just making coupons... Kind of like how the feds do it. Its always backed by coin, but if everyone pulls out there wont be enough.
Sure, that's called a "short squeeze". But you can settle in cash. So instead of me giving you your 10 coins i could give you say $1200 |
|
|
|
Its not a myth, its wrote in the script of bitcoin only 21 million can ever be created. The devs arent just going to raise the limit when they feel like it, it would have to be a consensus from the majority of Bitcoin users.
Yes but it's just a parameter. Parameters can change, at least in theory, in the future. Parameters HAVE changed, e.g. the default dust size. So it's correct to say that we are currently scheduled to have 21 million coins, right now. NOT that there will never be more than 21 million coins in the future. The final number of coins will be decided by consensus. |
|
|
|
No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
I love the brain wash of the core dev team. So how did transactions get slow because of micro-transactions? It never did it was always a free market. Also how does it spam the blockchain? It doesn't, maybe instead of brainwashing people the core dev team should start actually fixing the blockchain, which has been broken, due to the lack of attention it gets. The most important part of bitcoin and it doesn't get any attention kind sad. It spams the uxto which is normally kept in memory. The core dev team is actually pretty good compared with most open source projects, but is still vulnerable to a 51% consensus attack... It doesnt matter tho, because losses to bitcoin will be gains to alt currencies. It's competition fair and square. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
