Bitcoin Forum
June 20, 2018, 08:11:13 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [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 58047 times)
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 01:02:51 AM
 #401

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.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

Want to earn 2500 SATOSHIS per hour? Come Chat and Chill in https://goseemybits.com/lobby
1529482273
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529482273

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529482273
Reply with quote  #2

1529482273
Report to moderator
The World's Betting Exchange

Bet with play money. Win real Bitcoin. 5BTC Prize Fund for World Cup 2018.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1529482273
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529482273

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529482273
Reply with quote  #2

1529482273
Report to moderator
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 01:12:24 AM
 #402

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.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

You seem to think you have the right to demand that the miners do something for you for free.  It costs as much to transmit the same number of bytes whether it is for a 1000 BTC transaction or a dust transaction that does nothing except benefit you, for whatever reason you want it, and otherwise just clutters up the blockchain. 

Why should your nearly worthless transaction be entitled to the same consideration in getting into a block as one that actually benefits the network in general?
CasinoBit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 01:24:31 AM
 #403

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.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

You seem to think you have the right to demand that the miners do something for you for free.  It costs as much to transmit the same number of bytes whether it is for a 1000 BTC transaction or a dust transaction that does nothing except benefit you, for whatever reason you want it, and otherwise just clutters up the blockchain. 

Why should your nearly worthless transaction be entitled to the same consideration in getting into a block as one that actually benefits the network in general?

Because where do you draw the line? First it's the dust transactions then they may block one dollar transactions, next thing you know no-one will accept transactions unless you pay a fortune in transactions fees...
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 01:29:51 AM
 #404

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.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

You seem to think you have the right to demand that the miners do something for you for free.  It costs as much to transmit the same number of bytes whether it is for a 1000 BTC transaction or a dust transaction that does nothing except benefit you, for whatever reason you want it, and otherwise just clutters up the blockchain.  

Why should your nearly worthless transaction be entitled to the same consideration in getting into a block as one that actually benefits the network in general?

Because where do you draw the line? First it's the dust transactions then they may block one dollar transactions, next thing you know no-one will accept transactions unless you pay a fortune in transactions fees...

The line is being drawn between 0.5 and 1.0 cents because this mirrors how the fiat world works. It also reduces abuse of the blockchain as a data-storage waste dump. That's it. Many people have written here in support of that. No one is talking about raising this line above one cent  (except you).

gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 01:41:49 AM
 #405

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.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

You seem to think you have the right to demand that the miners do something for you for free.  It costs as much to transmit the same number of bytes whether it is for a 1000 BTC transaction or a dust transaction that does nothing except benefit you, for whatever reason you want it, and otherwise just clutters up the blockchain. 

Why should your nearly worthless transaction be entitled to the same consideration in getting into a block as one that actually benefits the network in general?

Cause if I am paying fees, it shouldn't matter if my transaction is  0.00000001BTC or 1000BTC, so nothing is being demanded for free. Thank you for showing you have no idea what your talking about but keep commenting like you do.

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

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 01:43:35 AM
 #406

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.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

You seem to think you have the right to demand that the miners do something for you for free.  It costs as much to transmit the same number of bytes whether it is for a 1000 BTC transaction or a dust transaction that does nothing except benefit you, for whatever reason you want it, and otherwise just clutters up the blockchain. 

Why should your nearly worthless transaction be entitled to the same consideration in getting into a block as one that actually benefits the network in general?

Because where do you draw the line? First it's the dust transactions then they may block one dollar transactions, next thing you know no-one will accept transactions unless you pay a fortune in transactions fees...

The line is being drawn between 0.5 and 1.0 cents because this mirrors how the fiat world works. It also reduces abuse of the blockchain as a data-storage waste dump. That's it. Many people have written here in support of that. No one is talking about raising this line above one cent  (except you).

How is it a data-storage waste dump? It is a legal transaction. If you have a problem with the size of the blockchain then don't use the full node, go to a lightweight client. That is why they are created.

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

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 01:50:53 AM
 #407

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.

I know exactly what it is.  You have got to be kidding me.  So, certain transactions used to be possible, then Satoshi banned them.  Today, certain other transactions are possible, the developers are banning them in exactly the same way.  It's "censorship" exactly how you say today's is.  If you can't see that, you either don't understand what bitcoin Scripts do, or you're just hero-worshiping Satoshi and carrying a grudge against the current developers.  I mean, this is so blindingly obvious to me I can't fathom how you can possibly contort your logic to gloss over this.  I will try to explain it though.

You act like sending any amount you want (as long as it's 0.00000001 BTC or more, the One True Quantum Value blessed by the Hand of Satoshi), is some basic human right, but the ability to write any script you want is not.  One might say about restricting the possible scripts:

It is censorship, it is controlling how I spend my hard earn money.

Those scripts also govern how you may spend your hard earned money.  Because of Satoshi's censorship, you have fewer ways to spend your money than you did before.  How can you not see the inconsistency in your positions?

I'm aware Script is pretty crappy and not very powerful, and the current standard transaction types support most of the things the average person reasonably wants to do.  Satoshi discouraged the use of full Script because the average person doesn't need it, and supporting it risks making the network weaker -- that's exactly the reason why tiny values are being discontinued!  Complain about value restriction if you want, but it seems completely hypocritical to accept Script censorship in the same breath.

P.S.  If Script had not been crippled early on, maybe it would have been extended and be useful today.  I guess we'll never know, since power-hungry, greedy, corporate-owned Satoshi decided to flex his muscle and show us how he can take away our control over our money! (sarcasm, but using the same terms people are using to describe the modern developers and this change)

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
pekv2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 01:55:29 AM
 #408

I still agree that this is a censorship.
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1001


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 01:57:15 AM
 #409

Or as I like to say:  all bitcoins come with strings attached.

That is, the ability to spend bitcoins is precisely and individually defined by the script language.

Each bitcoin transaction may have different rules for spending.

And 99.999% of the possibilities were years-ago classified by Satoshi as "non-standard", and not relayed or mined by default.  Only a few transaction types were whitelisted.


Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
boonies4u
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 02:03:58 AM
 #410

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.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

Mining to confirm your own transactions is not the same as overthrowing a government. It just means that you suck at convincing other people to confirm your transactions so you are forced to confirm your own.

Determining default behavior is not censorship, you're just pissed that a lot of the miners are sticking with the default so you claim it is censorship.

What makes you think that miners should be forced to accept your transactions?
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 02:35:46 AM
 #411

And 99.999% of the possibilities were years-ago classified by Satoshi as "non-standard", and not relayed or mined by default.  Only a few transaction types were whitelisted.

Thank you, at least the people still entertaining technical arguments may better understand and believe this is not the first time certain types of transactions have been black-listed.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 02:38:42 AM
 #412

I still agree that this a censorship.

I know, it is sad, that the dev core development team brainwashed other people. It is like the foundation all over again LOL

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

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 03:03:23 AM
 #413

I still agree that this a censorship.

Honestly I'm not even necessarily arguing against that anymore.  Someone is putting barriers to you expressing yourself in certain ways; you can call that censorship if you want.  But gweedo is trying to use precedent and Satoshi's supposed intentions to paint this as some first-time grave departure from the fundamentals of bitcoin.  I've shown there's already precedent for something similar done by Satoshi himself years ago, and it hasn't killed us yet.  If that doesn't persuade you, fine, but I hope you at least believe what you do for sound reasons.

There's also the fact, mentioned by several people several times, that nobody has to mine or relay anything.  That's the way it's always been.  Tweaking some default settings doesn't change that.  It may nudge a lot of people in a certain direction, but they have just as much of a choice as they always had.

If you want a payment system with strictly-defined parameters under which a payment must be accepted or you have some power to impose consequences, then use legal tender and courts to force your payment to be accepted.  Or maybe see if you can come up with an altcoin with similar properties.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 03:13:16 AM
 #414

I still agree that this a censorship.

Honestly I'm not even necessarily arguing against that anymore.  Someone is putting barriers to you expressing yourself in certain ways; you can call that censorship if you want.  But gweedo is trying to use precedent and Satoshi's supposed intentions to paint this as some first-time grave departure from the fundamentals of bitcoin.  I've shown there's already precedent for something similar done by Satoshi himself years ago, and it hasn't killed us yet.  If that doesn't persuade you, fine, but I hope you at least believe what you do for sound reasons.

There's also the fact, mentioned by several people several times, that nobody has to mine or relay anything.  That's the way it's always been.  Tweaking some default settings doesn't change that.  It may nudge a lot of people in a certain direction, but they have just as much of a choice as they always had.

If you want a payment system with strictly-defined parameters under which a payment must be accepted or you have some power to impose consequences, then use legal tender and courts to force your payment to be accepted.  Or maybe see if you can come up with an altcoin with similar properties.

Your talking about scripting, that is a different subject, it has nothing to do with dust. I have proven everyone of your argues to be wrong, what else do I need to do, have Satoshi show you it is wrong.

I love how people are arguing against me instead of going "Hey this guy has proven everyone else to be wrong with documentation." But most people are followers and don't see it that way. That is the sad part.

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

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1001



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 03:21:21 AM
 #415

There is no censorship here.  You are still free to create and broadcast any transactions you want.  This patch just makes it easier for other people to decide whether to relay your garbage or not.

17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 03:23:32 AM
 #416

There is no censorship here.  You are still free to create and broadcast any transactions you want.  This patch just makes it easier for other people to decide whether to relay your garbage or not.

Obviously not if it will never be included in a block I am not free to do anything the miners choose how I spend my money. Thanks for posting the same thing the last 21 pages are about.

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

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1004


Gerald Davis


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 03:34:42 AM
 #417

There is no censorship here.  You are still free to create and broadcast any transactions you want.  This patch just makes it easier for other people to decide whether to relay your garbage or not.

Obviously not if it will never be included in a block I am not free to do anything the miners choose how I spend my money. Thanks for posting the same thing the last 21 pages are about.

Miners have ALWAYS been free not to include your tx in a block.  Miners everyday routinely don't include tx in the next block (thus the unconfirmed list).

Initially the functionality of the bitcoind were so crude miners had little control over what tx were included.  That wasn't intended it was simply the result of limited development and higher priorities.  Over time more functionality was added which allowed miners to fine tune their transaction selection.

Today miners can and do exclude transactions based on:
a) priority
b) block size
c) tx fees

and starting in 0.8.2
d) output size

0.8.2 simply gives miners the ability to better control the transactions they want to include.  If it wasn't in bitcoind miners could write custom patches to do the very single thing.  Satoshi always intended for miners to have the control over which tx to include.  Nothing has changed, the devs have given miners the tools to make more informed transaction selection. Now miners are "big boys" and if they see a lot of value in including 100 satoshi or even 1 satoshi transactions they can.  They simply need to change the configuration file.  Given miners already set a half dozen configuration values related to min fees, block size, priority, etc one more config value is hardly a burden for a miner.

If you think bitcoin is better off with 1 satoshi spam ... then convince enough nodes to mine them and you can spam away.  The reality is you KNOW miners don't want to include dust spam however prior to 0.8.2 they lacked tools good enough to make optimal tx selection.  No miners wants to bloat the chain with uneconomical spam, it makes their future jobs more difficult.  All those uneconomical outputs have a high probability of never being spent and thus they bloat the UXTO.  The UXTO governs the resources miners (and all full nodes) use to validate tx and blocks.  

It seems you are afraid of the free market.  Freedom is about choice.  You are free to create dust spam, nobody can stop you.  Miners are free to chose not to include that dust spam up till now miners lacked good tools to exclude those tx.  That isn't "freedom" it is merely a lack of choice due to insufficient development.  Starting in 0.8.2 you won't be able to stop miners from exercising their freedom to not include uneconomical transactions. 
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 03:40:22 AM
 #418

Your talking about scripting, that is a different subject, it has nothing to do with dust. I have proven everyone of your argues to be wrong, what else do I need to do, have Satoshi show you it is wrong.

I love how people are arguing against me instead of going "Hey this guy has proven everyone else to be wrong with documentation." But most people are followers and don't see it that way. That is the sad part.

Scripting is about the parameters of transactions, just as dust is.  I find it very relevant.  Satoshi blocked certain transactions based on scripts, Gavin is blocking certain transactions based on values.  There is very little difference, if you're going to be hardcore about free speech and "spending your hard-earned money however you want."  If you will not grant me that, you are either dishonest or confused.  If you agreed but had further issues about why this change is worse, that would be acceptable.  It would at least make you look more informed and reasonable IMO.

Heh, documentation.  Like vague references to what "the whitepapers" say?  Then I showed that the white paper doesn't even come close to saying what you claim where you claim it did, and you gave no answer.

I am not free... the miners choose how I spend my money.

DeathAndTaxes has got this one better than I do, but don't you realize this is exactly how it has been since the start of bitcoin?  I could start solo-mining and attempt to blacklist just your transactions if I wanted.  Each node has as much right to choose what he relays and mines, as you do to create transactions and send it to them.  If you think you ought to have some enforced right to have your transactions confirmed by the network, make an altcoin that magically does that.  Bitcoin has never been that coin.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 03:41:27 AM
 #419

There is no censorship here.  You are still free to create and broadcast any transactions you want.  This patch just makes it easier for other people to decide whether to relay your garbage or not.

Obviously not if it will never be included in a block I am not free to do anything the miners choose how I spend my money. Thanks for posting the same thing the last 21 pages are about.

Miners have ALWAYS been free not to include your tx in a block.  Miners everyday routinely don't include tx in the next block (thus the unconfirmed list).

Initially the functionality of the bitcoind were so crude miners had little control over what tx got included.  Over time more functionality was added.  

Today miners can and do exclude transactions from every single block based on:
a) priority
b) block size
c) tx fees
and starting in 0.8.2
d) output size

0.8.2 simply gives miners the ability to better control the transactions they want to include.  If it wasn't in bitcoind miners could write custom patches to do the very single thing.  Satoshi always intended for miners to have the control over which tx to include.  Nothing has changed, the devs simply have given miners more control.

Now miners are "big boys" and if they see a lot of value in including 100 satoshi or even 1 satoshi transactions they can.  They simply need to change the configuration file.  Given miners already set a half dozen configuration values related to min fees, block size, priority, etc one more config value is hardly a burden for a miner.

If you think bitcoin is better off with 1 satoshi spam ... then convince enough nodes to mine them and you can spam away.  The reality is you KNOW miners don't want to include dust spam.  It makes their future jobs harder.  All those uneconomical outputs will likely NEVER be spent and thus they bloat the UXTO.  The UXTO governs the resources miners (and all full nodes) use to validate tx and blocks.  

It seems you are afraid of the free market.

Freedom is about choice.  You are free to create dust spam, nobody can stop you.  Miners are free to chose not to include that dust spam  ... and starting in 0.8.2 you won't be able to stop them.

I know exactly how the free market works and I know how mining works. This goes from a free market, to a dictatorship, plus they don't even have a good free market model for fees, so yeah. Also if I can only mine from the bitcoind, then a default value would most likely be the form of censorship.

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

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 03:43:56 AM
 #420

I am really really done with this thread, so don't quote me anymore. I don't want to answer the same questions and have the same arguments/debates I had in the last 22 pages, so anymore comes with a new argument, documentation, or a new view, I may jump in but clearly it is the same circle just going around.

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