WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs

[jdillon]

Gavin Andresen has changed the Bitcoin code to block any output with a value of less than 54uBTC:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577

Many Bitcoin users are going to be affected and see their funds blocked. For instance ASICMiner share payments, BitHits faucet payments, anyone depending on microtransactions. If you depend on small payments you need to change your business model now or find yourself shutdown overnight.

Gavin: It's sad that you aren't willing to speak about this publicly on the forums, rather than hiding away all the debate on GitHub away from the general public.

edit: To be clear, I like the patch: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577#issuecomment-17138223

What I don't like is when I realized not once had Gavin or anyone else in the development team made a public statement that this change was coming down the line. If I hadn't made this post, for all I know it would have been hidden away in the next Bitcoin-QT with no warning at all, right when we all have to upgrade before May 15th.

Why isn't think on your blog or someone else so people have time to change the way their businesses operate? Why the secrecy?

[HorseRider]

Gavin Andresen has changed the Bitcoin code to block any output with a value of less than 54uBTC:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577

Many Bitcoin users are going to be affected and see their funds blocked. For instance ASICMiner share payments, BitHits faucet payments, anyone depending on microtransactions. If you depend on small payments you need to change your business model now or find yourself shutdown overnight.

Gavin: It's sad that you aren't willing to speak about this publicly on the forums, rather than hiding away all the debate on GitHub away from the general public.

ASICMINER usually includes many share payments in a single transaction. some payments is very small but they added up to a large transaction. Will this kind of transaction be affected?

[jdillon]

ASICMINER usually includes many share payments in a single transaction. some payments is very small but they added up to a large transaction. Will this kind of transaction be affected?

Yes. If a transaction includes any outputs with a value less than the limit they whole transaction is blocked.

[lucif]

This is Satoshi critics to existing system Bitcoin should be opposite to. They breaking the Bible.

Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.

From one patch to another, Bitcoin becomes what they try to get rid off.

[bitcoinstarter]

This is Satoshi critics to existing system Bitcoin should be opposite to. They breaking the Bible.

Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.

From one path to another, Bitcoin becomes what they try to get rid off.

^^this^^

[Gab1159]

This is Satoshi critics to existing system Bitcoin should be opposite to. They breaking the Bible.

Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.

From one patch to another, Bitcoin becomes what they try to get rid off.

Why are they doing this? Reduce lag on shitty exchanges such as GOX??

[mpfrank]

Gavin Andresen has changed the Bitcoin code to block any output with a value of less than 54uBTC:
...

So, what happens when Bitcoin takes over the world economy, and 54 uBTC is worth a lot of money ($54 say)?  Then Bitcoin will only be usable for large-value transactions...  It will be more like the existing inter-bank wire-transfer system at that point...

[Birdy]

Gavin Andresen has changed the Bitcoin code to block any output with a value of less than 54uBTC:
...

So, what happens when Bitcoin takes over the world economy, and 54 uBTC is worth a lot of money ($54 say)?  Then Bitcoin will only be usable for large-value transactions...  It will be more like the existing inter-bank wire-transfer system at that point...

I think a change to accept lower volumes again would be easy to get accepted by everyone.

[Dacm4n]

Gavin Andresen has changed the Bitcoin code to block any output with a value of less than 54uBTC:
...

So, what happens when Bitcoin takes over the world economy, and 54 uBTC is worth a lot of money ($54 say)?  Then Bitcoin will only be usable for large-value transactions...  It will be more like the existing inter-bank wire-transfer system at that point...

Maybe use litecoin, that's one of the reasons it was created.

[jdillon]

Yes, the price on money transfers will be determined by free markets. It is not impossible that bitcoin will mostly be used for debt settlement and large transfers like real estate transactions and inter bank ops.

I agree with you on that point. What I do not agree with is Gavin simply making a change without informing the public or letting people have any chance to prepare in advance, nor does he have any alternatives to give people.

[bitcool]

Maybe use litecoin, that's one of the reasons it was created.

Exactly. A multiple level cryptocurrency family function better than a single coin system.

[hello_good_sir]

This is really aggressive on Gavin's part.  It shows how we've all become dependent on him.  We need to fork him into obscurity, but realistically that isn't going to happen.  He's a criminal and we let him become our king.

Bitcoin isn't designed for micro-transactions, but we shouldn't ban micro-transactions either.  Let gradually increasing competition for space within blocks do that naturally.

I'm at a busy time in my life, otherwise I might tackle forking bitcoin and salvaging the system from His Majesty.

[lucif]

Litecoin and others will meet same shit if they ever become popular.

Bitcoin needs distributed block chain storage. This will fix everything.

[bitcool]

Litecoin and others will meet same shit if they ever become popular.

Bitcoin needs distributed block chain storage. This will fix everything.

You mean the problem of moving up the value chain? That's a nice shit to have for any coins....

[optimator]

Doesn't this create the possibility of a fork? Those on the 0.8.1 client will build micro transactions into the blockchain, but the 0.8.2 client won't relay those transactions?

[Hauk]

This sounds ridicilous. Can someone better qualified than me explain why this is so severly needed and what the worst case scenario would be if we didn't do this?

With the price changes in bitcoin 0.7 cents sounds like a unreasonably large amount to cap it.

What's the problem with miners deciding what transactions they include?

[BeeCoin]

Gavin Andresen has changed the Bitcoin code

Being a decentralized system, I guess there is no such thing as "changing the Bitcoin code".
So: What is exactly affected? Only the original Bitcoin client? Or is it a change in the network / infrastructure?

[justusranvier]

Doesn't this create the possibility of a fork? Those on the 0.8.1 client will build micro transactions into the blockchain, but the 0.8.2 client won't relay those transactions?

No. according to the description this doesn't affect in any way which transactions are or are not valid in a block.

It changes which transactions an unmodified bitcoind/bitcoin-qt client will relay on the network.

Miners can put as many non-standard transaction in their blocks as they want, but without further modification the reference client will not broadcast or relay those transactions to the miners.

There's been a patch floating around for a while that removes the minimum fee needed to relay transactions; I expect something similar will exist for this change.

[bitcool]

Bitcoin needs distributed block chain storage. This will fix everything.

Aren't bittorrent and other file sharing networks doing this already?

What's the holdups or downside?

[wyager]

54µBTC seems like an inordinately large sum. Why not leave this up to the miners?