Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2017, 03:16:57 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 56709 times)
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:42:59 PM
 #81

Maybe use litecoin, that's one of the reasons it was created.

Minimal fee is 0.1 LTC. It's 35 cents. Too high for micro-transactions.

Does anyone know which alts are currently ideal for micro-transactions?

Bytecoin works good with 0 BTE fee.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506223017
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506223017

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506223017
Reply with quote  #2

1506223017
Report to moderator
crazy_rabbit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:43:20 PM
 #82

If the vast majority of the community doesn't like this move can't we just ignore the new patch and refuse to upgrade?

Go ahead. :-) I think you will be disappointed however.

If the majority doesn't upgrade and the majority doesn't want it.  Then the devs need to listen to the majority.  End of Story.

True. Unless of course some hard fork appears- then you're either going to need to get new devs or upgrade in a jiffy.

While technically of course you're right, the majority are the large mining pools and the really big miners who are by and large are quite active in talking about future developments. So it's really voting by hash power, and the people who control the vast amount of hash power aren't the same as the majority of people using bitcoin.

more or less retired.
crazy_rabbit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:43:59 PM
 #83

Maybe use litecoin, that's one of the reasons it was created.

Minimal fee is 0.1 LTC. It's 35 cents. Too high for micro-transactions.

Does anyone know which alts are currently ideal for micro-transactions?

Bytecoin works good with 0 BTE fee.

Litecoin tried that too. One person needs only start sending billions of satoshi sized transactions for the whole network to seize up.

more or less retired.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:45:41 PM
 #84

Maybe use litecoin, that's one of the reasons it was created.

Minimal fee is 0.1 LTC. It's 35 cents. Too high for micro-transactions.

Does anyone know which alts are currently ideal for micro-transactions?

Bytecoin works good with 0 BTE fee.

Litecoin tried that too. One person needs only start sending billions of satoshi sized transactions for the whole network to seize up.

Currently.
crazy_rabbit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:46:06 PM
 #85

I agree with this we need to fork, bitcoin was once known for the small transactions, and they want to take that away. Gavin has an ego and it needs to be taken under control. This is ridiculous this is a fix because they don't want to spend time trying to fix the bloat of the blockchain thru censorship!

I think we need to ask ourselves if Bitcoin will be a small transaction currency in the future or if it will be the backbone of a new future financial system in which the regular user rarely interacts with the blockchain directly.

That said, rather then fork- why not devise an alt-coin or use bitcoin testnet coins for this?

more or less retired.
crazy_rabbit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:48:52 PM
 #86

If the vast majority of the community doesn't like this move can't we just ignore the new patch and refuse to upgrade?

Go ahead. :-) I think you will be disappointed however.

How so? If the vast majority stick with the 0.8.1 client I think the 0.8.2 client people would be disappointed.
Bitcoin is still Beta level software- there are still quite a few bugs to be worked out.

Um, transaction size is not a bug.

No, it's not, and I didn't mean to imply that. What I meant to convey is that you could still with this version of the bitcoin software if you want, but you would be missing out on all the bugs that get fixed with later version releases. Hence the "I think you will be disappointed". Because I think the future advantageous of the newer software will outweigh this issue.

Also, who says this is permanent? Maybe it's a stop gap measure to satisfy some pressing demands while a better solution is found.

more or less retired.
Elwar
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226


www.bitpools.com


View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 09:49:59 PM
 #87

If the vast majority of the community doesn't like this move can't we just ignore the new patch and refuse to upgrade?

Go ahead. :-) I think you will be disappointed however.

How so? If the vast majority stick with the 0.8.1 client I think the 0.8.2 client people would be disappointed.

Well they are fixing things in the upgrade releases, so I think in general you will want to upgrade. If not now, then eventually. Bitcoin is still Beta level software- there are still quite a few bugs to be worked out.

0.8.2 will have the small transaction change with some bug fixes...

We can upgrade to 0.8.3 that has the transaction change taken out and leaves in the bug fixes.

http://www.bitpools.com
Pool your bitcoins with others. Vote on solutions using the Bitcoin blockchain. Keep your bitcoins in your cold storage until you find a solution you like.
Links and Reviews of useful every day places to spend bitcoins: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=943143.0
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 09:50:09 PM
 #88

I agree with this we need to fork, bitcoin was once known for the small transactions, and they want to take that away. Gavin has an ego and it needs to be taken under control. This is ridiculous this is a fix because they don't want to spend time trying to fix the bloat of the blockchain thru censorship!

I think we need to ask ourselves if Bitcoin will be a small transaction currency in the future or if it will be the backbone of a new future financial system in which the regular user rarely interacts with the blockchain directly.

That said, rather then fork- why not devise an alt-coin or use bitcoin testnet coins for this?


Your talking about something maybe in 25-50 years from now could happen. Today I want to send a penny if I use 0.8.2 I can't. IT IS CENSORSHIP. THE FOUNDATION IS ALL ABOUT CENSORSHIP!!!! GAVIN IS A DICTATOR OF BITCOIN. SATOSHI WOULD CRY RIGHT NOW!!! THE DEV TEAM CAN"T EVEN CODE THERE WAY OUT OF A PAPER BAG, THEY ARE USELESS. I am sick of them, the community is sick of them, it is time to cut them out of the power positions they have created for them self. If you believe that your correct go update, but trust me it starts with little changes like this and next thing you know your silk road addresses are block, then other things. GAVIN IS A POWER HUNGRY GREEDY PERSON, I SAW THIS FROM DAY ONE OF THE FOUNDATION. I HAVE BEEN RIGHT THE WHOLE WAY DOWN TO THIS.


OVER THROW THE DEV TEAM, THEY CAN"T HANDLE THE POWER THEY HAVE!

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

Activity: 1428


Okey Dokey Lokey


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:51:02 PM
 #89

Created a poll for this subject
 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196266.0

http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=DingoRabiit&sign=ANY&type=RECV <-My Ratings
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.0 GAWminers and associated things are not to be trusted, Especially the "mineral" exchange
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:51:14 PM
 #90

I think we need to ask ourselves if Bitcoin will be a small transaction currency in the future or if it will be the backbone of a new future financial system in which the regular user rarely interacts with the blockchain directly.

Are u talking about Bank 2.0?
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 09:56:36 PM
 #91

Has nobody read this thread?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191425.0;all

This pull request is the first step towards a market between miners (who want higher fees) and merchants/users (who want lower fees, but also want their transactions confirmed). Miners can already control what fees they accept, this pull lets users control (very clumsily, improvements on the road map) the fee they are willing to pay.

Eventually the goal is to have no hard-coded magic fee levels at all, so manual adjustments to reflect big exchange rate swings aren't needed any more. But we're not there yet.
If that's the direction the reference client is going then I consider this to be a positive change.
lophie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Unlimited Free Crypto


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 10:00:39 PM
 #92

Most people who posted in this thread are utterly clueless about the subject of conversation. Go fork yourself a cluelesscoin or something.


I was one of the flamers until Gavin and Gmaxwell put me in my place. I think the reasoning and implications of this decision was not advertised and explained enough, And how temporary and easy to change back this is.

Guys we at least owe Gavin some gratitude to consider actually reading what is this all about. right?

Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 10:10:46 PM
 #93

Bitcoin is not suitable for micro transactions. This is all. Nothing new  here, it was pretty obvious from the very beginning that all those dusters are allowed to shit into blockchain only until there are not enough more serious transactions to fill the blocks.

If you want to spam blockchain, patch the client or use another one and hope that miners will be amenable to serve you for free.



Bitcoin IS suitable for microtransactions.  I do transcations shipping items that have actually been smaller then 20 mBTC.  The issue here is that microtransactions are not what is being blocked, what is being blocked is what bitcoiners call dust.  What is being blocked could be called  pico-transactions, and bitcoin is the only system that could potentially handle these but it is problematic.   

Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 10:15:31 PM
 #94

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

So, what happens when Bitcoin takes over the world economy, and 54 uBTC is worth a lot of money ($54 say)?  Then Bitcoin will only be usable for large-value transactions...  It will be more like the existing inter-bank wire-transfer system at that point...
Maybe use litecoin, that's one of the reasons it was created.

Not really.  Litecoin is FASTER. Litecoin handles micro transactions quite poorly though because the fee is actually higher on a dollar basis than bitcoin.  Until litecoin is patched it costs .1 LTC or about 40 cents for a transaction.  If I were to take litecoin for my $2 orders might actually cost the customer more then Paypal would charge me (in microtrans mode)! 

mc_lovin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


www.bitcointrading.com


View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 10:17:17 PM
 #95

What about when you do a "sendmany" transaction?  For when you need to pay 200+ people with one transaction in a batch, would this 54uBTC law apply to the whole sum of all the payments within the transaction or each amount within it?  If we can send them in batch safely as long as the total was >54uBTC, then people won't have anything to complain about, perhaps then the thing to do would be to wait until you have enough transactions to send.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 10:20:32 PM
 #96

What about when you do a "sendmany" transaction?  For when you need to pay 200+ people with one transaction in a batch, would this 54uBTC law apply to the whole sum of all the payments within the transaction or each amount within it?  If we can send them in batch safely as long as the total was >54uBTC, then people won't have anything to complain about, perhaps then the thing to do would be to wait until you have enough transactions to send.

"Treat dust outputs as non-standard" said in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577.
misterbigg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 10:20:54 PM
 #97

Admit utter defeat in this argument if you dare.

LOL

Perhaps I meant micropayments. In that context, micropayments are a viable use-case. But sending less than a penny? Bitcoin in it's current incarnation will eventually be unable to handle that, the transaction fee would be too high.


           ▄▄███████████▄▄
       ▄▄███████████████████▄▄
     ▄███████▀▀       ▀▀███████▄
   ▄██████▀               ▀██████▄
  ▄█████▀          █ █▄     ▀█████▄
 ▄████▀      ▄     ▄███▄      ▀████▄
▄████▀     ▄▀ ▄▀  ▄██████▄     ▀████▄
█████     █▀ █▀ ▄████████▄      █████
████     ██ ██        ▀███ █     ████
████     ██ ██▄         ██ █     ████
████     ██ ▀██▄        █ ▄█     ████
█████    ██▄ ▀███▄    ▄ ▀ ██    █████

▀████▄    ███▄ ▀▀████▀  ▄██▀   ▄████▀
 ▀████▄    ▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██▀    ▄████▀

  ▀█████▄    ▀▀███████▀▀    ▄█████▀
   ▀██████▄               ▄██████▀

     ▀███████▄▄       ▄▄███████▀
       ▀▀███████████████████▀▀

           ▀▀███████████▀▀
AIRTOKEN█████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
█████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
[AirFOX
BROWSER
][AirFOX
RECHARGE
]█████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
lophie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Unlimited Free Crypto


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 10:21:12 PM
 #98

What about when you do a "sendmany" transaction?  For when you need to pay 200+ people with one transaction in a batch, would this 54uBTC law apply to the whole sum of all the payments within the transaction or each amount within it?  If we can send them in batch safely as long as the total was >54uBTC, then people won't have anything to complain about, perhaps then the thing to do would be to wait until you have enough transactions to send.

Any transaction containing outputs less than 54uBTC will not be relayed

bitcoiners
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 10:21:38 PM
 #99

Most people who posted in this thread are utterly clueless about the subject of conversation. Go fork yourself a cluelesscoin or something.


Lol, says the guy that told people to buy above $200 before the crash and then is commenting on cluelessness.  You even asked if the crash was over and it crashed again down to $50.  You have no idea what you are saying.  End of story.

bitcoiners
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 10:26:50 PM
 #100

If the vast majority of the community doesn't like this move can't we just ignore the new patch and refuse to upgrade?

Go ahead. :-) I think you will be disappointed however.

How so? If the vast majority stick with the 0.8.1 client I think the 0.8.2 client people would be disappointed.
Bitcoin is still Beta level software- there are still quite a few bugs to be worked out.

Um, transaction size is not a bug.

No, it's not, and I didn't mean to imply that. What I meant to convey is that you could still with this version of the bitcoin software if you want, but you would be missing out on all the bugs that get fixed with later version releases. Hence the "I think you will be disappointed". Because I think the future advantageous of the newer software will outweigh this issue.

Also, who says this is permanent? Maybe it's a stop gap measure to satisfy some pressing demands while a better solution is found.

Rabbit, I like your posts I really do.  But you are defending something only the bitcoin "millionaires" want.  So far the majority of the bitcoin world is against this if you check the other post/poll in this sub and the votes.  I don't care if it's permanent or not.  Transaction size should not be limited. Period.
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!