No, false. Spammer could not spam the change addresses if you have not spent anything yet. My solution still has a practical value in many cases. The donation receiver could spend the donations in batches or perhaps not use a change address at all or set the same address for the change address.
This still puts the onus of the trouble on the receiver, and any mistakes makes him an easy target.
A good anti-spam solution should be easy on the normal users, "safe by default", and hard for the spammer, "expensive by default", not vice-versa.
GTFO. You are too lazy to understand the implications of my proposal and you fail to provide any solutions yourself. You just whine.
This still puts the onus of the trouble on the receiver, and any mistakes makes him an easy target.
What does this even mean? In case you are not a programmer I am not going to even bother to discuss this with you any further. In case you are a programmer, you should know, that what you see as a problem, can be solved programmatically by the wallet software. Either way, since you fail to understand the technical details of such a feature, you should just stick to the abstract.
AbstractThere should be functionality for the wallet owner to define the minimum amount of bitcoins they are willing to receive. Such a command must be saved in the bitcoin block chain for a small fee. As a result, bitcoin wallets become resistant to dust spam which would otherwise slow down their device dramatically or consume all the RAM.