Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:26:03 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 »
  Print  
Author Topic: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs  (Read 57699 times)
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 11, 2013, 08:43:22 PM
 #341

One realistic scenario is that some players mine at a loss, simply because they find other value in mining -- keeping bitcoin decentralized, keeping bitcoin secure, processing non-standard transactions, etc.

We can't design the network assuming miners will mine at a loss. That's why so much stuff will have to eventually be changed.

Although microtransactions constitute little of the transaction volume, they do constitute a significant amount of the fees. As competition goes down, miner revenue will decrease. And as mining revenue decreases, increased centralization will result. Although it's good to reduce spam while block subsidies form the majority of miner revenue, we should be open to revoking these changes in the future.

I believe that there should be a certain "network health" index that reports on how much miners earn in fees. If this index drops too precipitously, the Bitcoin network should band together to stimulate miner revenue. Luckily, we have many untapped sources of fees yet:

  • The block size limit is at 1 MB. Assuming continued Bitcoin growth, this will eventually be stalling miner revenue. Increasing this will increase transaction volume and therefore miner revenue. This is probably the most powerful method of strengthen the network, but must be done cautiously as it requires a hardfork.
  • Non-standard transactions, including these microtransactions, are plenty and can eventually be upgraded to standard. This will increase fee-paying transaction volume and help stimulate network health. These don't require hardforks, but do require many people to upgrade to have an effect.
  • If eventually Bitcoin is integrated into the financial system, governments can transparently offer subsidies to Bitcoin miners through otherwise meaningless but high-fee transactions. This would be similar to a stimulus plan for economic failure, as we have now. This is probably the best solution to intermittent problems, as no end-user action is required.
1511281563
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281563

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281563
Reply with quote  #2

1511281563
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511281563
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281563

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281563
Reply with quote  #2

1511281563
Report to moderator
1511281563
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281563

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281563
Reply with quote  #2

1511281563
Report to moderator
1511281563
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281563

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281563
Reply with quote  #2

1511281563
Report to moderator
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
May 11, 2013, 09:39:01 PM
 #342

We can't design the network assuming miners will mine at a loss.

No one has ever suggested doing so.  A situation that can be realistic one miner might not be realistic for another -- free market, free choice.




Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
BitBank
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 74



View Profile
May 11, 2013, 11:27:43 PM
 #343

Relevant question:

why hasn't the price of BTC dropped substantially as a result of this announcement?
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile WWW
May 11, 2013, 11:41:45 PM
 #344

why hasn't the price of BTC dropped substantially as a result of this announcement?

Because nobody really cares that they'll have a hard time sending less than $0.0062445 (5430 satoshis @ $115/BTC).  There's always been a lower limit on divisibility.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 11, 2013, 11:47:35 PM
 #345

why hasn't the price of BTC dropped substantially as a result of this announcement?

Because nobody really cares that they'll have a hard time sending less than $0.0062445 (5430 satoshis @ $115/BTC).  There's always been a lower limit on divisibility.

Lets just make up more stuff. I am pretty sure the price didn't drop cause most people don't understand how the regulations will be hurting bitcoins in the long term. The market is dumb, their is a few really smart people in the market, but for the most part, as a whole the market is dumb.

Want to earn 2500 SATOSHIS per hour? Come Chat and Chill in https://goseemybits.com/lobby
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 11, 2013, 11:51:37 PM
 #346

why hasn't the price of BTC dropped substantially as a result of this announcement?

Because nobody really cares that they'll have a hard time sending less than $0.0062445 (5430 satoshis @ $115/BTC).  There's always been a lower limit on divisibility.

Lets just make up more stuff. I am pretty sure the price didn't drop cause most people don't understand how the regulations will be hurting bitcoins in the long term. The market is dumb, their is a few really smart people in the market, but for the most part, as a whole the market is dumb.

Wow. It's the opposite. The market is smarter than any single human. It works like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 11, 2013, 11:54:35 PM
 #347

why hasn't the price of BTC dropped substantially as a result of this announcement?

Because nobody really cares that they'll have a hard time sending less than $0.0062445 (5430 satoshis @ $115/BTC).  There's always been a lower limit on divisibility.

Lets just make up more stuff. I am pretty sure the price didn't drop cause most people don't understand how the regulations will be hurting bitcoins in the long term. The market is dumb, their is a few really smart people in the market, but for the most part, as a whole the market is dumb.

Wow. It's the opposite. The market is smarter than any single human. It works like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

Not the free market, if this was true, then we never have panic sells, that drive the price down. Also no bots would make money. Trust me, I know this stuff, the market is dumb in reactions to certain events.

Want to earn 2500 SATOSHIS per hour? Come Chat and Chill in https://goseemybits.com/lobby
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 12:23:23 AM
 #348

Because nobody really cares that they'll have a hard time sending less than $0.0062445 (5430 satoshis @ $115/BTC).  There's always been a lower limit on divisibility.

Lets just make up more stuff. I am pretty sure the price didn't drop cause most people don't understand how the regulations will be hurting bitcoins in the long term. The market is dumb, their is a few really smart people in the market, but for the most part, as a whole the market is dumb.

What is there to make up?  I stated an opinion, some figures, and a fact about the protocol.  Are my figures and facts wrong, or my opinion?

My opinion is that because the market has not moved significantly, nobody cares.  Or, perhaps they don't know about this, which is another form of "not caring."  If they can't be bothered to follow the news and make decisions based on it, the future of bitcoin must not be very important to them.  That's their choice, but you seem to believe others who are smarter, should make it for them.  If that's really what you believe, we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that your way of thinking is in line with "the spirit of bitcoin" or what the average user wants.  (Oh, another theory: the people who cared have sold their bitcoins for good, and people who don't care bought them, bringing the market to equilibrium.  If true, this means the changes have driven people away from bitcoin, but nobody said it has to be palatable to every single person; that's impossible.  Use/create an altcoin if bitcoin is unacceptable to you.)

Since you're so much smarter than the market, please enlighten us how these regulations will be hurting bitcoin in the long term?  Seriously, if there's a reason, I want to know.  Is there some reason a 5430-satoshi minimum hurts us, but a 1-satoshi minimum didn't?  Remember that the network sets the minimum as each node wills, so it can go back down to 1 satoshi if that's what they want.  If so, where is the threshold where it goes from acceptable to unacceptable?  Or is any change from what Satoshi blessed automatically bad?  In that case, bitcoin has been harmed hundreds of times over the last few years.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 12:26:58 AM
 #349

I consider these regulations similar to a bank account. We will eventually have to take them out to fund the network, but that's not necessary now. So we'll earn some interest (the interest being the lack of spam and smaller blockchain sizes) in the meantime.
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 12:32:03 AM
 #350

Because nobody really cares that they'll have a hard time sending less than $0.0062445 (5430 satoshis @ $115/BTC).  There's always been a lower limit on divisibility.

Lets just make up more stuff. I am pretty sure the price didn't drop cause most people don't understand how the regulations will be hurting bitcoins in the long term. The market is dumb, their is a few really smart people in the market, but for the most part, as a whole the market is dumb.

What is there to make up?  I stated an opinion, some figures, and a fact about the protocol.  Are my figures and facts wrong, or my opinion?

My opinion is that because the market has not moved significantly, nobody cares.  Or, perhaps they don't know about this, which is another form of "not caring."  If they can't be bothered to follow the news and make decisions based on it, the future of bitcoin must not be very important to them.  That's their choice, but you seem to believe others who are smarter, should make it for them.  If that's really what you believe, we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that your way of thinking is in line with "the spirit of bitcoin" or what the average user wants.  (Oh, another theory: the people who cared have sold their bitcoins for good, and people who don't care bought them, bringing the market to equilibrium.  If true, this means the changes have driven people away from bitcoin, but nobody said it has to be palatable to every single person; that's impossible.  Use/create an altcoin if bitcoin is unacceptable to you.)

Since you're so much smarter than the market, please enlighten us how these regulations will be hurting bitcoin in the long term?  Seriously, if there's a reason, I want to know.  Is there some reason a 5430-satoshi minimum hurts us, but a 1-satoshi minimum didn't?  Remember that the network sets the minimum as each node wills, so it can go back down to 1 satoshi if that's what they want.  If so, where is the threshold where it goes from acceptable to unacceptable?  Or is any change from what Satoshi blessed automatically bad?  In that case, bitcoin has been harmed hundreds of times over the last few years.

It shows how stupid you really are, you said about 10 things just now that didn't make any sense.

"If that's really what you believe, we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that your way of thinking is in line with "the spirit of bitcoin" or what the average user wants."

This right here means you didn't read any of this thread and your points are invalid. The "Spirt of bitcoin" is not to make censorship on the blockchain. That is what this upgrade does. So thank you for your dumb opinion with no research.

Want to earn 2500 SATOSHIS per hour? Come Chat and Chill in https://goseemybits.com/lobby
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 02:24:49 AM
 #351

It shows how stupid you really are, you said about 10 things just now that didn't make any sense.

"If that's really what you believe, we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that your way of thinking is in line with "the spirit of bitcoin" or what the average user wants."

This right here means you didn't read any of this thread and your points are invalid. The "Spirt of bitcoin" is not to make censorship on the blockchain. That is what this upgrade does. So thank you for your dumb opinion with no research.

If you read nothing else:  You call this censorship.  The blockchain already "censors" transactions less than 1 satoshi because they are not expressible by the protocol.  Again, why is this significantly different than "censoring" values less than 5430 satoshi?  You have chosen to ignore the low value of 5430 satoshi, which makes me believe you feel it's irrelevant, and it's just the principle of it.  That's almost an understandable hard-line ideological reason, but then how is even a 1 satoshi minimum acceptable, then?  "I want to send 0.1 satoshi, and the client is censoring me by not allowing it!"  I'm guessing you weren't campaigning against that some months ago before this change came up.  Did you complain when 0-satoshi outputs were made non-standard in similar fashion to this change?  That would actually be more literally censorship, since there is no transfer of value, only information.  This is the biggest hole I see in an argument that is supposedly only about an ideological offense to censorship.  There has never been a Bitcoin network that did not restrict transaction values in some way.  The only argument left is that further restricting is automatically bad, but I don't think that is reasonable and self-consistent.  As I pointed out, 1 possible transaction value (zero) has already been removed.  Was that censorship less severe just because it was smaller, or was it because it was "censorship" of "speech" (zero value) you also did not support?  There could be more possible answers (please give one if you have another), but these seem hypocritical from a hardline purely "free speech" perspective.  Similarly I can't think of a consistent reason to support divisibility only down to 10^-8, if you ardently believe that transaction value should be a form of unrestricted speech.

Maybe it was a little garbled; I find some of your posts to be the same way to me.  I made the mistake of trying to address several points and it probably got jumbled.  I think it shows you are not willing to have any reasoned discussion about this, that you don't even attempt to address any more than one sentence of what I wrote but spend the rest of your post calling me stupid and uninformed.  These sorts of tactics will not persuade anyone who might have been sympathetic to your arguments and able to make any difference.

I would agree censorship is against the spirit of bitcoin, but this isn't censorship because it's voluntary.  If everyone running a node updates but changes their settings back to a 1-satoshi minimum, nothing will change.  If people update and don't care to change defaults, or agree with them, this change will happen.  It's like democracy.  I'm getting tired of the arguments about "nobody ever changes the defaults, so the defaults are de-facto rules."  I agree this is probably quite true, but it's the users' problem for not bothering to understand what the beta software they're running on their system is doing.  You should advocate about that issue, not what the defaults are.  (And yes, this is a problem with software in general; average computer literacy is nowhere near high enough to effectively do all the stuff that people are trying to do with computers.  If you want a payment solution that "just works", I'm sure someone like Apple has such a thing, but you have absolutely no transparency in how it works.)

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 02:58:10 AM
 #352

this isn't censorship because it's voluntary

It is not voluntary on the client level. Remember miners have to to include it in the blockchain, no miner includes it in the blockchain then that is the way it goes. So far no miners are stepping up to the plate and saying they will allow 0.00000001 in the blockchain, it is then not voluntary. Miners have the power, and therefor we either go with them or get run over by them. No two ways about it. Go read this thead Wink I have already explain this 1000x times and there are many people that agree with me. This is a small change yet a big one as well. This is changing the whitepapers, to a different terms. Gavin and the developers are power hungry and are showing us that they can flex their power and change whatever they want. You don't see it, and that is your problem, but just as I was correct about the foundation, I will be correct about this. Bitcoin is going down and this is just the beginning.

Want to earn 2500 SATOSHIS per hour? Come Chat and Chill in https://goseemybits.com/lobby
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 03:46:07 AM
 #353

It is not voluntary on the client level. Remember miners have to to include it in the blockchain, no miner includes it in the blockchain then that is the way it goes. So far no miners are stepping up to the plate and saying they will allow 0.00000001 in the blockchain, it is then not voluntary. Miners have the power, and therefor we either go with them or get run over by them. No two ways about it. Go read this thead Wink I have already explain this 1000x times and there are many people that agree with me. This is a small change yet a big one as well. This is changing the whitepapers, to a different terms. Gavin and the developers are power hungry and are showing us that they can flex their power and change whatever they want. You don't see it, and that is your problem, but just as I was correct about the foundation, I will be correct about this. Bitcoin is going down and this is just the beginning.

I'll agree that people (including myself) have sometimes oversimplified it.  If 90% of the network stops relaying small transactions, they are effectively dead, no matter who is willing to mine them or the minority that will relay them.  However, this could already be happening -- there is no guarantee that everyone will relay and mine every transaction.  I think there are some pools currently censoring Satoshi Dice.  The incentives are engineered to attempt to make cooperation be in everyone's best interest.  If nodes don't want to process your transaction, then you'll have to pay more, or use a currency backed by laws forcing it to be legal tender, and rely on people with guns and human cages to make sure your transaction is processed.  I mean, there's a certain baseline level of consent you have to meet to make any transaction happen.  The more parties you add, the higher it might be.  No amount of complaining about fairness or "Satoshi's vision" will change that, unless human nature changes.  I'll agree that maybe a .1BTC fee would be quite fair to send a few satoshis that might rot on hard drives forever, but such a policy should be coded and advertised by miners, not the main developers.  If anyone cares enough to do this, it will happen.

You invoked The Whitepaper, but I am not finding any place where it says arbitrarily small transaction values must be possible, certainly not to the level of detail of 1 satoshi.  In fact, Satoshi was here for the IsStandard() change to the client to only allow certain types of transactions.  How's that for censorship?  The same arguments raged in that thread, by the same (types of) people as today.  If restricting tiny payment values is the start of Bitcoin "going down", it already died years ago when an infinitude of possible payment scripts were censored in pretty much the exact same way as these values.

I can agree that this change could have had better transparency.  I do not believe the developers are changing it just to flex.  Whoever believes in allowing small transactions can band together and make it happen, at least as well as non-IsStandard() transactions are still happening today.  The fact that no pools are "stepping up" shows they are willing to let the developers set this policy for them, or can't be bothered at this early stage to make any announcements about it (the first release candidate with this change just barely came out, after all.)  That kind of apathy is what could kill bitcoin, not what defaults the developers set.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
grue
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 03:48:28 AM
 #354

Wow. It's the opposite. The market is smarter than any single human. It works like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

"invisible hand of the market"

this is what libertarians actually believe.

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 04:51:07 AM
 #355

I apologize if this was already asked and answered, but I didn't see it.

This change seems like it would make a 1 BTC transfer fail if the chosen input was 1.000001 BTC because the change would be below the threshold for being passed on. Will this be made obvious to users or will it just not confirm with no explanation? Could this be solved by automatically making the fee eat the whole amount of the change?

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
jdillon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 04:53:12 AM
 #356

Who gets to decide how slow is too slow?
(...)
Solo mining or running a pool will very soon require investing in a reasonably fast network connection and a machine with at least a few gigabytes of memory.

Knocking the slowest N% of solo miners/pools off the network every year (where N is less than 20 or so) is not a crisis.
BTC Guild right now.
Okey dokey.

Have you contributed any patches to p2pool to make it more efficient / easier to install / etc? If not, why not if you're so worried about centralization?

(honest question, I don't keep up with p2pool development because I'm personally not terribly worried about mining centralization)

Peter isn't stupid you know. You just said exactly why he isn't working on P2Pool yourself: if the blocksize limit is removed like you and the big Bitcoin players paying your salary want, running a node will cost thousands of dollars per year in equipment and network bandwidth.

Why on earth would any miner want to spend that much money when they can just mine at BTC Guild instead and increase their profit margin?

The worst part is you know this, and spread this bullshit anyway.

So lets ask you a question, in all those meetings you have at the Foundation, who is present? What are the likes of big payment processors like BitPay telling you to say about the blocksize limit? What do they want, and do they care about Bitcoin's decentralization at all?
raze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 04:57:57 AM
 #357

The only thing this thread has taught me is that I'm now a little more uncertain of the future of Bitcoin. I did have high hopes for it, but all this bickering in the community over one patch, people making hard forks etc. is only going to make it worse in the end.

BTC --16FPbgyUZdTm1voAfi26VZ3RH7apTFGaPm
LTC -- Lhd3gmj84BWqx7kQgqUA7gyoogsLeJbCXb
PPC -- PRpKGjgjNLFv8eR7VVv7jBaP8aexDFqk4C
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 05:00:36 AM
 #358

Who gets to decide how slow is too slow?
(...)
Solo mining or running a pool will very soon require investing in a reasonably fast network connection and a machine with at least a few gigabytes of memory.

Knocking the slowest N% of solo miners/pools off the network every year (where N is less than 20 or so) is not a crisis.
BTC Guild right now.
Okey dokey.

Have you contributed any patches to p2pool to make it more efficient / easier to install / etc? If not, why not if you're so worried about centralization?

(honest question, I don't keep up with p2pool development because I'm personally not terribly worried about mining centralization)

Peter isn't stupid you know. You just said exactly why he isn't working on P2Pool yourself: if the blocksize limit is removed like you and the big Bitcoin players paying your salary want, running a node will cost thousands of dollars per year in equipment and network bandwidth.

Why on earth would any miner want to spend that much money when they can just mine at BTC Guild instead and increase their profit margin?

The worst part is you know this, and spread this bullshit anyway.

So lets ask you a question, in all those meetings you have at the Foundation, who is present? What are the likes of big payment processors like BitPay telling you to say about the blocksize limit? What do they want, and do they care about Bitcoin's decentralization at all?

They have no meetings at the foundation, basically it is to take money from "Memberships" to his pockets.

Want to earn 2500 SATOSHIS per hour? Come Chat and Chill in https://goseemybits.com/lobby
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 05:15:49 AM
 #359

I apologize if this was already asked and answered, but I didn't see it.

This change seems like it would make a 1 BTC transfer fail if the chosen input was 1.000001 BTC because the change would be below the threshold for being passed on. Will this be made obvious to users or will it just not confirm with no explanation? Could this be solved by automatically making the fee eat the whole amount of the change?

How would you find it in 19 pages of insinuations about the developers' ulterior motives and such? Roll Eyes

It seems "dusty" change outputs will not be created.  If they would be, the dust will just be added to the fee.  Source.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 06:06:15 AM
 #360

I apologize if this was already asked and answered, but I didn't see it.

This change seems like it would make a 1 BTC transfer fail if the chosen input was 1.000001 BTC because the change would be below the threshold for being passed on. Will this be made obvious to users or will it just not confirm with no explanation? Could this be solved by automatically making the fee eat the whole amount of the change?

How would you find it in 19 pages of insinuations about the developers' ulterior motives and such? Roll Eyes

It seems "dusty" change outputs will not be created.  If they would be, the dust will just be added to the fee.  Source.

Thanks a bunch.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!