Bitcoin Forum
September 23, 2017, 04:04:06 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 56688 times)
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 07:17:40 PM
 #381

I also note Gavin is participating on the legitimate tech thread, just not this troll thread.

Uhmm he participated last month so you can see he is really in that thread. Gavin is the biggest problem to bitcoin, so many people don't see this ;( so sad.

Want to earn 2500 SATOSHIS per hour? Come Chat and Chill in https://goseemybits.com/lobby
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506139446
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506139446

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506139446
Reply with quote  #2

1506139446
Report to moderator
1506139446
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506139446

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506139446
Reply with quote  #2

1506139446
Report to moderator
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 07:51:34 PM
 #382

I also note Gavin is participating on the legitimate tech thread, just not this troll thread.

Uhmm he participated last month so you can see he is really in that thread. Gavin is the biggest problem to bitcoin, so many people don't see this ;( so sad.

OK, I guess it shows this thread isn't a total waste of time, but it's so long and vitriolic in places that it's unmanageable for doing any real discussion, and I place the blame for that on the original post that set a negative, unproductive tone.  All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 07:56:56 PM
 #383

All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.

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, 08:06:38 PM
 #384

All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.


Well, I can at least respect that you're willing to put in effort to fight for your principles.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
ProfMac
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 854



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 08:49:36 PM
 #385

All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.


Can you give a scenario where this limit hurts you?

I try to be respectful and informed.
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 08:56:16 PM
 #386

All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.


Can you give a scenario where this limit hurts you?

It is censorship, it is controlling how I spend my hard earn money. The white papers say I bitcoin go to the 8th decimal place, this is changing that, so this must be a new coin then right.

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

Activity: 854



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 09:00:19 PM
 #387

All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.


Can you give a scenario where this limit hurts you?

It is censorship, it is controlling how I spend my hard earn money. The white papers say I bitcoin go to the 8th decimal place, this is changing that, so this must be a new coin then right.

No, it's not right.  From what I have read, the new client has an option in bitcoind.conf to set the transaction limit.  This is actually more freedom, not less.

What I asked for is a scenario.  I am thinking of numbers, bitcoin amounts, where you think you would be harmed.  The inputs, the outputs.

I try to be respectful and informed.
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 09:03:47 PM
 #388

The white papers say I bitcoin go to the 8th decimal place, this is changing that, so this must be a new coin then right.

You claimed this the other day, and I still don't believe you.  This is the only official Bitcoin whitepaper I've seen, and I can't find any reference to values having 8 decimal places of precision.  I'm happy to be proven wrong, though, if you have a citation.  By the way, I don't mind "The original implementation allows for 8 decimal places, so we should keep that.", but it's a different argument.  Don't put words into the whitepaper that aren't there.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 09:15:49 PM
 #389

All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.


Can you give a scenario where this limit hurts you?

It is censorship, it is controlling how I spend my hard earn money. The white papers say I bitcoin go to the 8th decimal place, this is changing that, so this must be a new coin then right.

No, it's not right.  From what I have read, the new client has an option in bitcoind.conf to set the transaction limit.  This is actually more freedom, not less.

What I asked for is a scenario.  I am thinking of numbers, bitcoin amounts, where you think you would be harmed.  The inputs, the outputs.

Yes the client can change the amount of dust you keep, in the blockchain and relay, but if I want to send 0.00000001 regardless of the fees. If no miner puts it into the blockchain, and since this is on by default, no one really changes that, it will not be included. That is censorship. Now tell me how do I prove censorship with numbers, cause I never been asked that before.

The white papers say I bitcoin go to the 8th decimal place, this is changing that, so this must be a new coin then right.

You claimed this the other day, and I still don't believe you.  This is the only official Bitcoin whitepaper I've seen, and I can't find any reference to values having 8 decimal places of precision.  I'm happy to be proven wrong, though, if you have a citation.  By the way, I don't mind "The original implementation allows for 8 decimal places, so we should keep that.", but it's a different argument.  Don't put words into the whitepaper that aren't there.

I hate break your little heart, but you didn't prove me wrong. Look towards the end of the paper, you see those block halvings, they go into the 0.00000001 decimal place. Meaning that Satoshi had always planned for the currency to have 8 decimal places.

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, 09:41:45 PM
 #390

You claimed this the other day, and I still don't believe you.  This is the only official Bitcoin whitepaper I've seen, and I can't find any reference to values having 8 decimal places of precision.  I'm happy to be proven wrong, though, if you have a citation.  By the way, I don't mind "The original implementation allows for 8 decimal places, so we should keep that.", but it's a different argument.  Don't put words into the whitepaper that aren't there.

I hate break your little heart, but you didn't prove me wrong. Look towards the end of the paper, you see those block halvings, they go into the 0.00000001 decimal place. Meaning that Satoshi had always planned for the currency to have 8 decimal places.

This proves nothing at all if I'm reading the same PDF.  First, search for the string "0000000" (7 zeroes).  The only place it occurs is "P=1.0000000" (end of line).  So that is not 8 decimal places after the dot.

Second, that number appears under "Calculations", right?  That is the probability of a successful second-chain attack, not a block reward.  I don't think specific block rewards or a halving schedule are even in this paper, only the mention that new coins will be the incentive to mine, but that they may eventually go away.

I'm still open to my search function not finding something you are finding, but this sounds like what you described and yet is nothing like what you claim it says.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
boonies4u
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 09:44:41 PM
 #391

All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.


Can you give a scenario where this limit hurts you?

It is censorship, it is controlling how I spend my hard earn money. The white papers say I bitcoin go to the 8th decimal place, this is changing that, so this must be a new coin then right.

This only determines default behavior of miners and clients. Hardly censorship.
lophie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Unlimited Free Crypto


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 09:47:20 PM
 #392

Not censorship, It is called a free market (Where miners and transactors exchange fees for services).

---------------> start of Lophie's retarded imaginary land

I have an example for you. Imagine we just decided to use gold as a standard. Follow me in this hypothetical scenario please. So in this scenario no one will accept gold unless it is stamped with a universal stamp that verifies how much gold is in one coin (And a coin can be custom made with a specific quantity of gold embedded in it). Now imagine everyone having an equal chance of working as a stamper, Stamping cost them money as well and since ALL of them use the same stamper, they share the burden of keeping track of the stamped coins and their specific quantities embedded in them!.

Now if you want to create a custom coin which contains 1/1000 of what the minimum amount of gold in a coin is usually used, Plus 1/1000 is in fact so little that it costs the stampers even more to stamp it and keep track of the validity of the stamp! Plus the amount is too little that it is VERY unlikely for you to even use that custom coin. One of the stampers argument is also when the receiver want to spend those very very small coins you would have to put thousands of them in a very heavy pouch and dump it on them to melt them again into one coin which again... cost ALOT.

What the developer did in this suggestion is like suggesting a mechanism to determine that exact line when the amount of gold is just not worth it to stamp and that suggested mechanism allow that amount to change as this hypothetical gold fluctuate in value and those stampers start to see that a lower quantity is accepted or the other way around.

---------------> end of Lophie's retarded imaginary land

What you are calling censorship is like asking someone to make you a copper coin with 1 pico of a gram of gold and complain when the smith refuses because it just doesn't make any sense to do that for you.

Just my opinion. Please be nice. I know the above is written by an idiot.

lophie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Unlimited Free Crypto


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 09:50:28 PM
 #393

I don't understand what do you both mean by discussing satoshies not being explicitly mentioned in the paper. The paper is incomplete and everyone knows that. That is why we all refer to the full client as "The Reference Client" still.

darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 09:53:32 PM
 #394

Yes the client can change the amount of dust you keep, in the blockchain and relay, but if I want to send 0.00000001 regardless of the fees. If no miner puts it into the blockchain, and since this is on by default, no one really changes that, it will not be included. That is censorship. Now tell me how do I prove censorship with numbers, cause I never been asked that before.

If any miner does include it, it will be.  So if there is a market for such transactions, they will be included.  And yes, you can send whatever transaction you like.  It doesn't mean you can force anyone to confirm it.
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 10:04:55 PM
 #395

What you are calling censorship is like asking someone to make you a copper coin with 1 pico of a gram of gold and complain when the smith refuses because it just doesn't make any sense to do that for you.

Pretty good analogy, I think.  I might tweak it by saying the smith/stamper could choose to mint your coin at an exorbitant fee, which miners might agree to do with small transactions.  They have all the tools they need to do so, and nobody will stop them.  Yeah, the smith's guild is saying they think such coins are a waste of resources they won't put up with, but that's not censorship because it's not stopping any individual from buying bellows, anvil, etc., and putting in the time to mint their own coin.

I don't understand what do you both mean by discussing satoshies not being explicitly mentioned in the paper. The paper is incomplete and everyone knows that. That is why we all refer to the full client as "The Reference Client" still.

He's claiming that 8 decimal places are in the whitepaper and should therefore be retained.  It might make a little sense if it were in there, but I'm not seeing it.  In any case I agree it's incomplete, so it's generally not a useful standard for purists to compare against anyway.  He may as well be complaining that the current block reward schedule is an illegitimate addition, since, as far as I can see, it is not detailed in the whitepaper either.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 10:58:47 PM
 #396

Perhaps it's time for the official bitcoin-qt client to support an auto sweep of inputs into a single transaction  back to yourself on a regular basis. I've seen other threads where people discuss their techniques for doing this manually, but to my knowledge no client automates it yet.

I'm all for this.  But, it is harder than it looks.  The tricky part is that you have a bunch of competing pressures that you need to balance against the needs of the user.  It gets hard to quantify some of the decisions you have to make.

I wrote my own script to do a little bit of collections and consolidation.  But my script is not a general solution, it would be worthless, or worse than worthless, to people with different needs.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 11:33:15 PM
 #397

I like how everyone that quoted me asked the basically the same questions I have answered in the previous posts mean you guys didn't read the whole thread. It is useless debating all of you cause you guys are just so high on the core developer team brainwashing so even if you agreed with my points or thought they were correct, you never admitted. But believe me the people that believe that this is the wrong direction for bitcoin have been talking, and making the necessary connections to make sure the censorship stops.

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The funny thing is this is exactly like the when the foundation, started. I saw the foundation as a hurtful thing to bitcoin, I even discussed with a couple of people who at the time were very powerful, in this community. They told me I was insane. Today they tell me how right I was...

That is right in the end I am always right and you will see how this going to be one of the failures of bitcoins we look back and say we could have stop it.

I am done posting in this thread, cause it is going around and around in a circle.

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 13, 2013, 12:24:03 AM
 #398

I like how everyone that quoted me asked the basically the same questions I have answered in the previous posts mean you guys didn't read the whole thread. It is useless debating all of you cause you guys are just so high on the core developer team brainwashing so even if you agreed with my points or thought they were correct, you never admitted. But believe me the people that believe that this is the wrong direction for bitcoin have been talking, and making the necessary connections to make sure the censorship stops.

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The funny thing is this is exactly like the when the foundation, started. I saw the foundation as a hurtful thing to bitcoin, I even discussed with a couple of people who at the time were very powerful, in this community. They told me I was insane. Today they tell me how right I was...

That is right in the end I am always right and you will see how this going to be one of the failures of bitcoins we look back and say we could have stop it.

I am done posting in this thread, cause it is going around and around in a circle.

So, for the record, I see no refutation of my proof that your claim about the whitepaper is unfounded.  That means there is no foundational significance to the choice of 8 divisible decimal places, it's just what was implemented.  Also as I pointed out before, Satoshi himself has supported "censoring" certain transactions years ago.  Surprise, bitcoin is still alive!  Or at least was 2-3 months ago before all the drama around press contacts and this change started up.  I'm sure you would agree it was fine when the Foundation started, and many formerly-possible transactions were already being censored then.

Yes, we haven't all read all 21 pages of unfounded/misquoted claims about the whitepaper, accusations of how bad Gavin is, and the occasional exchange of factual information or logical arguments.  We're trying to get you to tell us why this is so bad, and your answer seems to be summed up as "censorship!" and "whitepaper!".  If your arguments are more nuanced, feel free to link a past post.  I believe I have just demonstrated why the whitepaper is irrelevant, and also argued here that the censorship argument doesn't make much sense given how Bitcoin was from the beginning, which nobody really responded to.  Maybe it's a stupid argument, but tell me why instead of ignoring it or calling me stupid.  I am also done with this thread unless someone is willing to actually engage in a discussion.

Well, I'm glad the future of bitcoin is safe in your capable and wealthy hands. /sarcasm  But seriously, if a few miners continue to support small tx I think it's a triumph for freedom of choice, but is not particularly valuable beyond ideological purism that has little practical relevance, or protection against the "slippery slope" that I don't think is a real danger.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 12:46:02 AM
 #399

I like how everyone that quoted me asked the basically the same questions I have answered in the previous posts mean you guys didn't read the whole thread. It is useless debating all of you cause you guys are just so high on the core developer team brainwashing so even if you agreed with my points or thought they were correct, you never admitted. But believe me the people that believe that this is the wrong direction for bitcoin have been talking, and making the necessary connections to make sure the censorship stops.

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The funny thing is this is exactly like the when the foundation, started. I saw the foundation as a hurtful thing to bitcoin, I even discussed with a couple of people who at the time were very powerful, in this community. They told me I was insane. Today they tell me how right I was...

That is right in the end I am always right and you will see how this going to be one of the failures of bitcoins we look back and say we could have stop it.

I am done posting in this thread, cause it is going around and around in a circle.

So, for the record, I see no refutation of my proof that your claim about the whitepaper is unfounded.  That means there is no foundational significance to the choice of 8 divisible decimal places, it's just what was implemented.  Also as I pointed out before, Satoshi himself has supported "censoring" certain transactions years ago.  Surprise, bitcoin is still alive!  Or at least was 2-3 months ago before all the drama around press contacts and this change started up.  I'm sure you would agree it was fine when the Foundation started, and many formerly-possible transactions were already being censored then.

Yes, we haven't all read all 21 pages of unfounded/misquoted claims about the whitepaper, accusations of how bad Gavin is, and the occasional exchange of factual information or logical arguments.  We're trying to get you to tell us why this is so bad, and your answer seems to be summed up as "censorship!" and "whitepaper!".  If your arguments are more nuanced, feel free to link a past post.  I believe I have just demonstrated why the whitepaper is irrelevant, and also argued here that the censorship argument doesn't make much sense given how Bitcoin was from the beginning, which nobody really responded to.  Maybe it's a stupid argument, but tell me why instead of ignoring it or calling me stupid.  I am also done with this thread unless someone is willing to actually engage in a discussion.

Well, I'm glad the future of bitcoin is safe in your capable and wealthy hands. /sarcasm  But seriously, if a few miners continue to support small tx I think it's a triumph for freedom of choice, but is not particularly valuable beyond ideological purism that has little practical relevance, or protection against the "slippery slope" that I don't think is a real danger.

Just cause your so dumb, I just had to point this out...

- IsStandard() check to only include known transaction types in blocks

This is what your talking about right? He is talking about the Scripting in the blockchain

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/1a2e45d8d50d22929ab12ae68189e6171907dba5/src/script.h#L672

Your so stupid, don't even comment anymore, cause your points are invalid because you find one thing you think is aligned with your views, and it isn't.

Stupid people don't comment in this thread anymore, so far that is scintill cause he can't research.

Want to earn 2500 SATOSHIS per hour? Come Chat and Chill in https://goseemybits.com/lobby
boonies4u
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 12:57:45 AM
 #400

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The fact that you can purchase ASICs and use them to confirm your own and others' "dust" transactions is proof that this isn't censorship.
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!