Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2017, 05:17:54 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 56711 times)
boonies4u
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 03:46:26 AM
 #421

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).

This.
1506230274
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506230274

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506230274
Reply with quote  #2

1506230274
Report to moderator
1506230274
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506230274

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506230274
Reply with quote  #2

1506230274
Report to moderator
Creating a Bitcoin client that fully implements the network protocol is extremely difficult. Bitcoin-Qt is the only known safe implementation of a full node. Some other projects attempt to compete, but it is not recommended to use such software for anything serious. (Lightweight clients like Electrum and MultiBit are OK.)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506230274
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506230274

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506230274
Reply with quote  #2

1506230274
Report to moderator
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 03:48:28 AM
 #422

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.

So, when Satoshi made it so miners can discriminate just by nature of how a free market system works, it was a free market, but when the current developers twiddle a bit of code to update defaults and make it "easier" to discriminate (even script kiddies know how to edit configuration files!), it's now a dictatorship.  OK, LOL.  Also, good job on describing the flaws in the fees model of Bitcoin v0.1.  It's a valid concern, but this change does nothing to make it worse.  The developers intend it to be a stepping-stone to improving things, in fact.

Also if I can only mine from the bitcoind, then a default value would most likely be the form of censorship.

Oh, so you want the developers to babysit your configuration for you, but complain that what they're doing is not what you want.  Just set your own configuration to whatever you want!  Anyone who can't or won't has no business complaining about the defaults.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 04:01:18 AM
 #423

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.

I've actually read all of the stupid posts in this stupid thread.

One last time just to be clear:  You are still free to create whatever transactions you want.  You are NOT FREE to force other people to relay or mine them.

You are not being censored.  Grow up.

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

Activity: 924


Unlimited Free Crypto


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 06:54:09 AM
 #424

First of all gweedo, Didn't you post that you are done with this thread and our stupidity? Do us all a favour and stick to your word please.  Roll Eyes

- Considering bitcoin is indeed undervalued is the dust limit really the "limit"? I mean wasn't a better lower limit is 10 BTC in fees when bitcoin was launched (Considering that it was worth virtually nothing). Bitcoin is still undervalued, Isn't that supposed to be consider in the calculations of the dust amount?

- Secondly, I admit there are alot of things in Bitcoin I don't understand so I don't know if this is possible. If I have 100 address with a dust amount, Obviously having them in one address making them NOT dust amount, But the problem as I understand it is it would not be prun-able unless it was spent, So can a user create two subsequent transactions one to accumulate dust in an address and one to move it to another? Then just broadcast them both. If a node saw both transactions it would relay it. Otherwise it would not.

And yeah gweedo just reminded me of something I heard. It was something like, "Power in the hand of the people is as dangerous as power in the hand of a specific individuals or a government. You are just moving power from one hand to the other."... Epic logic  Roll Eyes.

I also just want to put this out there. I disagree with the amount and all my nodes will relay %75 of it. It is my right to do so (in order to censor gweedo txes  Roll Eyes Tongue Roll Eyes)

darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 11:33:38 AM
 #425

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...

Neither I nor anyone else draws the line.  The market draws the line.  If at some arbitrary limit, the choice of miners to transmit or not transmit certain transactions cramps the style of the people using the currency, there will either be a hard fork or (more likely) some miners will begin to accept those transactions.  After all, a hard fork that is adopted by enough people will damage the value of the blocks they generate more than they save by refusing to transmit small transactions.

This isn't a slippery slope, because there will be pushback if that number does not get consensus (in fact there already is some pushback).  The line might even be drawn before this 54 μBTC value, if enough miners reject it.
CasinoBit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 11:54:36 AM
 #426

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...

Neither I nor anyone else draws the line.  The market draws the line.  If at some arbitrary limit, the choice of miners to transmit or not transmit certain transactions cramps the style of the people using the currency, there will either be a hard fork or (more likely) some miners will begin to accept those transactions.  After all, a hard fork that is adopted by enough people will damage the value of the blocks they generate more than they save by refusing to transmit small transactions.

This isn't a slippery slope, because there will be pushback if that number does not get consensus (in fact there already is some pushback).  The line might even be drawn before this 54 μBTC value, if enough miners reject it.

If that was the case the default setting would be to relay 1 satoshi, e.g. everyone relays all the transactions unless they set the settings otherwise.
ShireSilver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 383



View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 01:03:08 PM
 #427

The line is being drawn between 0.5 and 1.0 cents because this mirrors how the fiat world works.

This is probably what bothers me the most about this, that people are still so stuck in the old ways of doing things that they want to turn bitcoin into fiat.

Shire Silver, a better bullion that fits in your wallet. Get some, now accepting bitcoin!
wolongong
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 67



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 01:29:23 PM
 #428

Don't like it one bit, this makes it next to impossible to scrape of tiny fractions of your incoming transactions for eg. a service fee.
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 02:10:17 PM
 #429

Don't like it one bit, this makes it next to impossible to scrape of tiny fractions of your incoming transactions for eg. a service fee.

There might be a way of protesting this kind of arrangement, especially if some miners/pools adopt a policy of transmitting these small transactions, which is to boycott those who don't.  I.e. if you don't take these small transactions, you don't get my larger transactions with transaction fees, and those fees go to those who will.

This might not be very helpful if the majority of people doing those tiny transactions don't do enough "real" traffic to care about, but then the question becomes whether those people are worth caring about in the first place.  The fact is that the network load created by a given transaction has little to nothing to do with the "value" of the transaction, and is solely tied to the number of bytes it eats in a block.  That asset is limited, and for the sake of efficiency, should be allocated to favor those transactions with more value.

In actuality, though, these dust transactions, of minimal to nonexistent value to the network, consume far more of this limited resource than some feel due.  Why should a 10 BTC transaction wait in line behind 100 SatoshiDice transactions?
Scrat Acorns
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 293



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 04:19:18 PM
 #430

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. 


Quoted, as it is the post with the highest SNR in this thread.

UXTO bloat can potentially be a big problem in the future if it is not addressed.

The sky is not falling people.
wolongong
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 67



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 04:40:50 PM
 #431

If I take a .1, 54 μBTC or a .00000001 fee out of a 10 BTC incoming it takes up the same amount of space, but whatever. Good luck explaining random transmission fees to bean counter types.


+                    // Never create dust outputs; if we would, just
+                    // add the dust to the fee.
+                    if (newTxOut.IsDust())
+                    {
+                        nFeeRet += nChange;
+                        reservekey.ReturnKey();
+                    }


Somehow this just keeps reminding me of http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/salami.asp and the story of why coins got ridges.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 05:15:52 PM
 #432

The line is being drawn between 0.5 and 1.0 cents because this mirrors how the fiat world works.

This is probably what bothers me the most about this, that people are still so stuck in the old ways of doing things that they want to turn bitcoin into fiat.

There is a cost to everything.  Let me know when you issue 1 mg silver cards (~2.3 US Cents).  Next I will ask why not 1 ng cards (0.0023 US Cents).
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 05:19:47 PM
 #433

If I take a .1, 54 μBTC or a .00000001 fee out of a 10 BTC incoming it takes up the same amount of space, but whatever. Good luck explaining random transmission fees to bean counter types.


+                    // Never create dust outputs; if we would, just
+                    // add the dust to the fee.
+                    if (newTxOut.IsDust())
+                    {
+                        nFeeRet += nChange;
+                        reservekey.ReturnKey();
+                    }


Somehow this just keeps reminding me of http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/salami.asp and the story of why coins got ridges.

I think you misunderstand.

If you create a 1 BTC (or even 0.1 BTC or even 0.005 BTC) output it is highly likely to be spent eventually.  Now how long may vary.  Some outputs will be spent very quickly, some longer but the UXTO will be roughly based on the number of users * avg life of an unspent output.  The UXTO (not unpruned historical blockchain) is the CRITICIAL RESOURCE.

However if you create a 1 satoshi output it likely will never be spent.  Would you send 1 penny to your mortgage company to pay down the principal if it costs you $0.46 min to mail it?  Of course not.  So even with NO GROWTH in number of users the UXTO will continually bloat by the creation of "uneconomical transactions".

They can't be pruned, they can't be spent (well technically they can people will just choose not to) so they add the overall cost of the network for no benefit. 
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 05:22:25 PM
 #434

Don't like it one bit, this makes it next to impossible to scrape of tiny fractions of your incoming transactions for eg. a service fee.

Of course you can just use sendmany (or do it off blockchain).

i.e. 10x 0.1 BTC inputs and you want to divert 1% as a processing fee.

Transaction consists of:
10 x 0.1 inputs, 10x 0.099 outputs, 1x 0.01 collected fee.
BitcoinAshley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 06:42:30 PM
 #435

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. 


Quoted, as it is the post with the highest SNR in this thread.

UXTO bloat can potentially be a big problem in the future if it is not addressed.

The sky is not falling people.


QFT!
Something is seriously, seriously wrong here...
The people with the tinfoil hats are scared of the free market!
Isn't that, like, backwards or something? Grin Grin Grin
TraderTimm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 11:34:13 PM
 #436

The only ones afraid are the same that are abusing the blockchain.

Luckily, we'll soon be rid of their abusive behavior. Thanks for pushing us to this point, fellas - you're all such real "chums".

fortitudinem multis - catenum regit omnia
The-Real-Link
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 530



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 11:52:39 PM
 #437

As was said, to see this develop isn't completely unsurprising given anyone who watched this market in the past few months.

How many microtransctions (and by micro I mean 0.01 or less) do we need cluttering up the system before something grinds to a halt.  It seemed to be screwing up Gox enough, as is, though granted it's both parties' fault.

if 0.8.2 gives us miners control, that's very cool.  I know some wouldn't like the concept as it goes against true freedom in Bitcoin-Land but I'd rather have something work VS something so slow and bloated that it's unusuable and hinders progress and development.

Also I realistically figure that hey, this was control that was patched and implemented.  If uBTC or such ever becomes such a valuable resource and coins are far above $1,000 (where micro payments could be say, $1 or so), then yeah, they could always revisit the code again and adjust accordingly.  Even if I'm misunderstood in my explainations, the idea still stands that I don't recall hearing this is a forever-permanent kind of thing.

I think given the problems with spam and such we've seen though lately, that it was a good move to make until the usage and infrastructure catches up further.

Oh Loaded, who art up in Mt. Gox, hallowed be thy name!  Thy dollars rain, thy will be done, on BTCUSD.  Give us this day our daily 10% 30%, and forgive the bears, as we have bought their bitcoins.  And lead us into quadruple digits
wolongong
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 67



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 12:10:47 AM
 #438

Finding a way to halt the flood of micro transactions, fine, but why does that have to kill something like getting the correct amount of change back from a slightly larger input?
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 12:13:29 AM
 #439

Finding a way to halt the flood of micro transactions, fine, but why does that have to kill something like getting the correct amount of change back from a slightly larger input?
It doesn't relative to past versions: change under 0.0005 BTC was already generally converted into fees (because any output >0.01 forced the transaction to have a fee of at least 0.0005 BTC/kb, so any change less than 0.0005 was converted to fee in order to avoid an even larger fee)

Bitcoin will not be compromised
wolongong
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 67



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 12:37:20 AM
 #440

Would you send 1 penny to your mortgage company to pay down the principal if it costs you $0.46 min to mail it?  Of course not. 

Stuff like this happens every day in financial markets. The ECB announcing the 2 digit precision of the EUR will stay but going to make it impossible to settle cents through TARGET2 would be an administrative nightmare. There is another currency, I forgot which one, that pulls crap like this and is next to impossible to plug into standard STP systems.
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!