Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 01:31:23 AM *
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 57637 times)
Theraty
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 12:42:34 AM
 #441

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.

I think you raise a good point. Every time the bitcoin reaches a new target amount, say $1000 per bitcoin, the transaction amount can move down one decimal place. As it stands, there is no need for transactions less than .0001BTC.

If this was to happen it could drastically improve the speed of transactions but could have an effect on the development of the currency in third world countries where the bitcoins can give help improving their communities.
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.
1510968683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510968683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510968683
Reply with quote  #2

1510968683
Report to moderator
1510968683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510968683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510968683
Reply with quote  #2

1510968683
Report to moderator
1510968683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510968683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510968683
Reply with quote  #2

1510968683
Report to moderator
wolongong
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 67



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 01:01:44 AM
 #442

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)

QT client is one thing. Won't be relayed, won't be mined is something else.
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 01:07:09 AM
 #443

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.

There may and probably will come a time when the interests of the users of the currency (who are actually using it as a currency) collide with the interests of miners.  There's a natural tension there.  (One that the market should be able to resolve, usually.)

However, speaking as a user, I have had numerous transactions from 3-10 BTC where I would sit and watch, sometimes for hours, while floods of dust transactions worth less than a penny went by on the blockchain while my own transaction languished without a single confirmation.  It is quite infuriating.  Usually, things go smoothly.  When they don't, though, it is hard to have patience for these bullshit little transactions.
boonies4u
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 05:42:33 AM
 #444

I dont believe this will happen to the Bitcoin chain at all, It just isnt likely considering how much profit miners still can make.

Right, because miners depend so much from fees.  Roll Eyes
Theraty
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 05:49:01 AM
 #445

I dont believe this will happen to the Bitcoin chain at all, It just isnt likely considering how much profit miners still can make.

But doesn't the extra transactions make the transfer rate slower. I mean with all the transactions under say .01 included in the system, wouldn't all other transactions and confirmations slower?
BitHits
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile WWW
May 14, 2013, 07:59:35 AM
 #446

BRING ON THE FORKS!

ITS PAST DUE WE FIX BITCOIN!

E-Mail BitHits.info@gmail.com if you are interested in doing this.

I'll be starting a website in the near future dedicated to fixing BitCoin before self-righteous fucks destroy it with what 'they think' is best for BitCoin.

Free BTC http://beta.BitHits.info BTC 1DNNERMT5MMusfYnCBfcKCBjBKZWBC5Lg2 DGC DH2Pm4VXxsTeqUYZkEySU1c8p5TLvuLe8u LTC LP2QiL1pnsaKVX5Qa811pFJuFL8FxkxWRz
Actor_Tom_Truong
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 08:28:15 AM
 #447

it's been weeks since I follow up with bitcoin.
Did they stop the transaction fee completely? Yes or No?
Theraty
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 08:45:44 AM
 #448

BRING ON THE FORKS!

ITS PAST DUE WE FIX BITCOIN!

E-Mail BitHits.info@gmail.com if you are interested in doing this.

I'll be starting a website in the near future dedicated to fixing BitCoin before self-righteous fucks destroy it with what 'they think' is best for BitCoin.

A form of consensus on major issues with bitcoins woul be very helpful here. Even if you are right about all your fixes, you still need to get majority vote on major changes. But definitely could go a long way.
Mazakguy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile
May 14, 2013, 02:54:59 PM
 #449

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the record, the forums no longer count as "public" as in "well informed public" but "public" as in "mob". I can understand why this wouldn't have been done on the forum. No offense, but you're a user with 28 Posts and you're essentially accusing one of the most important guys in bitcoin of some sort of underhanded secrecy. That doesn't mean that you can't be right, but still, it's a mob mentality down here, and there are thousands of us down here ready to tear anything apart.


Well if walks and sounds like a duck, it is.  What makes this Gavin person any more important the anyone else?  I am willing to bet he profits from this somehow. Maybe all us unwashed masses should revolt. Down with the king
qualalol
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 03:36:12 PM
 #450

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the record, the forums no longer count as "public" as in "well informed public" but "public" as in "mob". I can understand why this wouldn't have been done on the forum. No offense, but you're a user with 28 Posts and you're essentially accusing one of the most important guys in bitcoin of some sort of underhanded secrecy. That doesn't mean that you can't be right, but still, it's a mob mentality down here, and there are thousands of us down here ready to tear anything apart.


Well if walks and sounds like a duck, it is.  What makes this Gavin person any more important the anyone else?  I am willing to bet he profits from this somehow. Maybe all us unwashed masses should revolt. Down with the king
What makes Gavin important is that he maintains a bitcoin client, and a whole bunch of people decide to use his bitcoin client. They could instead very easily decide to have their bitcoin client supplied by any other random person that decides to maintain their own client. If everyone started obtaining their bitcoin client from someone else then Gavin would no longer be important. Everyone is free to choose who they obtain their bitcoin client from. They can even start maintaining their own bitcoin client. You can find the sources here, no one is stopping you from having your own client. Good luck in convincing others to use your client!
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
May 14, 2013, 04:32:47 PM
 #451

BRING ON THE FORKS!

ITS PAST DUE WE FIX BITCOIN!

E-Mail BitHits.info@gmail.com if you are interested in doing this.

I'll be starting a website in the near future dedicated to fixing BitCoin before self-righteous fucks destroy it with what 'they think' is best for BitCoin.

Why do you hate freedom?

Miners now (post 0.8.2) will have the CHOICE (but not requirement) to restrict uneconomical transactions to improve the efficiency of the network.

What about choice do you find so scary?
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 705



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 05:03:19 PM
 #452

Does it matter if one already has "dust"?  How can one tell if they have "dust" in their wallet?
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 11:09:08 PM
 #453

Well if walks and sounds like a duck, it is.  What makes this Gavin person any more important the anyone else?

Are you fucking kidding?  He is the lead developer.  That means he actually produces things of value.  You think he isn't important to Bitcoin?  Well, go and do something better than he's doing and maybe you'll be lead developer and have something worth saying on the subject.
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile WWW
May 15, 2013, 12:36:09 AM
 #454

What makes Gavin important is that he maintains a bitcoin client, and a whole bunch of people decide to use his bitcoin client. They could instead very easily decide to have their bitcoin client supplied by any other random person that decides to maintain their own client. If everyone started obtaining their bitcoin client from someone else then Gavin would no longer be important. Everyone is free to choose who they obtain their bitcoin client from. They can even start maintaining their own bitcoin client. You can find the sources here, no one is stopping you from having your own client. Good luck in convincing others to use your client!

While I'm with Gavin and the other developers on this, this is a bit of an oversimplification.  Yeah, he works on the client bitcoin-qt, but the same code is part of "bitcoind", which is the backbone of the Bitcoin network.  I'm not aware of anyone mining through any other server, and it's not recommended right now.  bitcoind therefore has a huge influence on what goes into blocks, which essentially defines what happens on the Bitcoin network.

That said, I agree with your essential point.  To expand: People have always been free to custom-patch bitcoind to their liking.  This change even makes it possible to configure more network parameters without your own code changes.  Configure/patch yours however you want, but don't whine when the rest of the network disagrees with you.  You've never had some right to force your wishes on the network.  If you want that, go somewhere else.

BRING ON THE FORKS!

ITS PAST DUE WE FIX BITCOIN!

E-Mail BitHits.info@gmail.com if you are interested in doing this.

I'll be starting a website in the near future dedicated to fixing BitCoin before self-righteous fucks destroy it with what 'they think' is best for BitCoin.

Haha, I can't help but think you sound self-righteous yourself.  You're going to "fix it" with what you think is best, but they can't?  I'm sure you, with your 3-month old account and few apparent contributions, know more than Gavin who has been around and contributing since 2010.  But go ahead, fork Bitcoin, I think it's been a whole couple of days since the last altcoin was announced.  Have fun re-investing the collective blood, sweat, and tears that have made Bitcoin what it is today.  Bitcoin's a lot more than the code in bitcoind.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
1PFYcabWEwZFm2Ez5LGTx3ftz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 120


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 06:10:19 PM
 #455

Look what you have done.

"Meanwhile it comes out that a cabal of developers has de facto control over the Bitcoin network and is devaluing very small wallets. The net effect of this is to reduce the money supply, deflating Bitcoin to benefit those with large holdings."

http://www.redstate.com/2013/05/16/tech-at-night-bitcoins-central-bankers-kim-dotcom-censors-mega/
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 705



View Profile
May 16, 2013, 08:22:06 PM
 #456

Look what you have done.

"Meanwhile it comes out that a cabal of developers has de facto control over the Bitcoin network and is devaluing very small wallets. The net effect of this is to reduce the money supply, deflating Bitcoin to benefit those with large holdings."

http://www.redstate.com/2013/05/16/tech-at-night-bitcoins-central-bankers-kim-dotcom-censors-mega/

Wait; "dust" in a wallet *can* be used as an input to a transaction.  If the only thing in a wallet is "dust" then as long as there is enough of it to add up to something greater than "dust" then it can be used.  What can "dust" be used to purchase?  *When* the exchange rate goes up enough then the size of "dust" can be change appropriately.  I fail to see the bad news here.
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
May 16, 2013, 08:48:36 PM
 #457

Wait; "dust" in a wallet *can* be used as an input to a transaction.  If the only thing in a wallet is "dust" then as long as there is enough of it to add up to something greater than "dust" then it can be used.  What can "dust" be used to purchase?  *When* the exchange rate goes up enough then the size of "dust" can be change appropriately.
Exactly— and more subtly, that dust will usually cost you more to spend than its worth!

Quote
I fail to see the bad news here.
Yea, no bad news there but the bad reporting is pretty apparent. Smiley

Bitcoin will not be compromised
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 09:06:37 PM
 #458

Yea, no bad news there but the bad reporting is pretty apparent. Smiley

More like ignorant reporting.  The conclusions reached by the author are just nonsense.
jamesgarfield
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14



View Profile
May 17, 2013, 06:46:07 AM
 #459

As much as I dislike SD's (and other's) abuse of the blockchain, this is a bad idea.  First, any idea that is admitted to be "temporary" should be suspected of being a bad idea.  Second, IMHO, it is philosophically wrong -- at best a band-aid for a bigger problem that needs a different solution.  Third, it's debatable whether or not this change will alter the behavior of those (ab)using the blockchain.  The motivation of gamblers is different.  I don't see how it will have any impact on them, other than to change the "dust" amount from 1 unit to 5430 units.  Those storing data in the blockchain will just move data around in units of 5430 Satoshi, rather than disposing of units of 1 Satoshi.  But fourth, I fear the technical issues have not been fully considered, and that's my main objection to this scheme...

One technical problem noted somewhere in this thread is how do you deal with change that's under the limit.  If you are a "bitcoin millionaire", it's probably not much of a problem.  If you are just starting out, it might be a significant problem.  Say you have 0.01005429 BTC to your name.  One rule says you can't spend less than 0.01.  This new rule says you can't spend between 0.01000000 and 0.01005428.  (I haven't looked at the code.  Does the client fail?  Are you forced to overpay the recipient?  Are you forced to pay your change as part of your "fee"?)

If you overpay the recipient, I suspect there are some automated systems that either (1) won't accept the payment or (2) might attempt to send your change back.  You are requiring modification to any such automated system that now exists.  You are also requiring modification to every other standard bitcoin client (else some transactions that used to go through will not go through).  And you are requiring potential modification to every application that generates its own transactions.  This proposed modification has consequences far beyond the official Satoshi client, and as far as I can tell, there has been no general solicitation of comments.

Similarly, what if you have one account with just slightly more funds than needed for a transaction.  Does the client automatically choose a second account to make sure the change is at least 5430 Satoshis?  I thought one of the goals of the client was to avoid mixing payment sources as much as possible to maintain some "privacy".  Although this shouldn't happen often, if you are dealing with random amounts between a bitcent or two, it seems this would occur about 1 in 300 such transactions.  (Again, not a problem for "bitcoin millionaires", but a potential problem for those just starting out.)

Another technical problem noted (but dismissed as irrelevant by some developers) is the increased window for double-spends.  Deny it if you want, but when each mining pool (and each full node) can choose parameters to decide whether or not a transaction is to be relayed, I think the surface area for double-spends has increased significantly.

Related to the above is the question of a node's "banscore".  I haven't examined the code.  If node B receives a transaction from node A, which node B thinks is non-standard, does node B bump node A's banscore?  I won't speculate on the implications until I look at the code, because this might be a red herring.

Finally, in many respects, you are trying to achieve results similar to that of a "5430 to 1 reverse stock split".  Of course, I'm not actually proposing this!  But some of the things corporations and stock exchanges go through when handling a reverse stock split might be considered in handling this proposed change.  Do you want to consider making every transaction output a multiple of 5430 Satoshis?  If it were a more round number, such as 5000 Satoshis, this might actually make sense.  For your very small "stockholders", the way I see it, you are changing the value of very small balances from "economically unspendable" to "practically unspendable".  To avoid a perceived hit in public confidence, the Bitcoin Foundation should send up to 5429 Satoshis to every address now containing 1 Satoshi of "dust".  (Or whatever amount is necessary to bring every address up to the minimum spendable amount.)

Obama's alt account Smiley
TradeFortress
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
May 17, 2013, 07:08:53 AM
 #460

The client already does this, say you want to send 0.01 BTC and you have 0.01002 BTC, your change will be forfeited because that would trigger the 0.001 mandatory fee, and would cost you more.
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!