|
bitcoiners
|
 |
May 05, 2013, 10:27:59 PM |
|
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. ROFL. You have just proven my point. What that you are an idiot? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every time a block is mined, a certain amount of BTC (called the
subsidy) is created out of thin air and given to the miner. The
subsidy halves every four years and will reach 0 in about 130 years.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mc_lovin
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
www.bitcointrading.com
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:28:14 PM |
|
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. So an output is.. the total amount? |
|
|
|
|
|
lophie
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:34:07 PM |
|
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. So an output is.. the total amount? No. For example in sendmany you could send to five different addresses, Each one is considered an output. Hey this stirred another question in my head. What about the "change" output. Can it be less than 54uBTC? What is it tagged differently than other outputs? |
Will take me a while to climb up again, But where is a will, there is a way...
|
|
|
|
bitcoiners
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:37:46 PM |
|
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. ROFL. You have just proven my point. What that you are an idiot? Too bad that you take an objective observation as an ad hominem attack and respond with an utterly clueless ad hominem attack of your own. Only confirming what I have said, at least as related to yourself. Blah, blah, blah. You were wrong before and you are wrong now. |
|
|
|
|
|
Birdy
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:39:15 PM |
|
No. For example in sendmany you could send to five different addresses, Each one is considered an output.
Hey this stirred another question in my head. What about the "change" output. Can it be less than 54uBTC? What is it tagged differently than other outputs?
Got the same question, if this also considers the change that could be awful. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ichthyo
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:39:54 PM |
|
i've never understood why there needs to be rules prohibiting these transactions. just enforce appropriate fees. "oh, you wanna send a satoshi? well ok... but the fee for that is MORE then a satoshi, so, you know. proceed at your own risk."
doesn't block transactions, but makes them much, much less likely to occur.
but didn't you understand that this patch is intended to be the first step on a roadmap to achieve exactly that goal? Next step would be to determine that relay limit dynamically, based on what is currently successfully being included into the blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
alyssa85
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1088
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:42:44 PM |
|
How does this affect getting change? Say I want to send an amount, but I don't have the exact amount in my wallet, I have a bit more -so it does two outputs, one to the address of the recipient, and another output to one of my addresses with the change. If the change is below this new threshold I no longer get it back?
|
|
|
|
|
lophie
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:44:17 PM |
|
i've never understood why there needs to be rules prohibiting these transactions. just enforce appropriate fees. "oh, you wanna send a satoshi? well ok... but the fee for that is MORE then a satoshi, so, you know. proceed at your own risk."
doesn't block transactions, but makes them much, much less likely to occur.
but didn't you understand that this patch is intended to be the first step on a roadmap to achieve exactly that goal? Next step would be to determine that relay limit dynamically, based on what is currently successfully being included into the blockchain. +1 |
Will take me a while to climb up again, But where is a will, there is a way...
|
|
|
|
wolverine.ks
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:45:55 PM |
|
so what would happen if i wanted to send less than the minimum, and then attached a 100btc fee/bid on top of that?
|
|
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:51:16 PM |
|
This is a terrible idea, IMO. Miners and full nodes should be able to decide which transactions to relay and include in blocks, and which transactions to not. An option to set a minimum amount per output or transaction should be built in to the client. So miners, if they believe transactions below a certain size to be dust, should set the option to not propagate transactions below that certain size. In this way, the free market would choose an appropriate minimum transaction size, as people could be waiting for days or weeks for their transactions to propagate the network and/or be included in a block if they are too small.
I can see all sorts of unintended consequences coming out of this. This is a fundamental change of Bitcoin, and really seems to go against the idea of freedom of financial transactions. Now, we will be regulated to only sending transactions of a certain size. No free market choice here...
Bleh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoiners
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:53:37 PM |
|
This is a fundamental change of Bitcoin, and really seems to go against the idea of freedom of financial transactions. Now, we will be regulated to only sending transactions of a certain size. No free market choice here...
Bleh.
This |
|
|
|
|
|
lophie
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:55:28 PM |
|
Now, we will be regulated to only sending transactions of a certain size. No free market choice here...
Shame of them limiting the amount to one satoshi! it should be 1/100000 of a satoshi..... What kind of argument is that?  |
Will take me a while to climb up again, But where is a will, there is a way...
|
|
|
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4158
Merit: 8382
|
|
May 05, 2013, 10:57:52 PM |
|
This is a terrible idea, IMO. Miners and full nodes should be able to decide which transactions to relay and include in blocks, and which transactions to not. An option to set a minimum amount per output or transaction should be built in to the client. So miners, if they believe transactions below a certain size to be dust, should set the option to not propagate transactions below that certain size. Uh. You realize your "should" are describing the change here, right? |
|
|
|
|
myself
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
chaos is fun...…damental :)
|
|
May 05, 2013, 11:08:58 PM |
|
This is Satoshi critics to existing system Bitcoin should be opposite to. They breaking the Bible. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. From one patch to another, Bitcoin becomes what they try to get rid off. litecoins  |
Los desesperados publican que lo inventó el rey que rabió, porque todo son en el rabias y mas rabias, disgustos y mas disgustos, pezares y mas pezares; si el que compra algunas partidas vé que baxan, rabia de haver comprado; si suben, rabia de que no compró mas; si compra, suben, vende, gana y buelan aun á mas alto precio del que ha vendido; rabia de que vendió por menor precio: si no compra ni vende y ván subiendo, rabia de que haviendo tenido impulsos de comprar, no llegó á lograr los impulsos; si van baxando, rabia de que, haviendo tenido amagos de vender, no se resolvió á gozar los amagos; si le dan algun consejo y acierta, rabia de que no se lo dieron antes; si yerra, rabia de que se lo dieron; con que todo son inquietudes, todo arrepentimientos, tododelirios, luchando siempre lo insufrible con lo feliz, lo indomito con lo tranquilo y lo rabioso con lo deleytable.
|
|
|
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 05, 2013, 11:09:20 PM |
|
Bitcoin is not suitable for micro transactions. Stop misusing the word. "microtransactions" are on the order of pennies, or tens of pennies. Perhaps almost a dollar. Bitcoin already supports these, although it could get prohibitively expensive as transaction volume goes up. These are nanotransactions or picotransactions. It makes no sense for Bitcoin to support transactions worth hundredths of a penny. Value in pennies depends on BTC valuation. Miners should be sorting the transactions they include by fee/byte. They can already do that if they want to. If you solo-mine then just don't include this patch. Or rally so it's not included in your pool's bitcoind. |
GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
|
|
|
|
|
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 05, 2013, 11:10:40 PM |
|
This is a terrible idea, IMO. Miners and full nodes should be able to decide which transactions to relay and include in blocks, and which transactions to not. An option to set a minimum amount per output or transaction should be built in to the client. So miners, if they believe transactions below a certain size to be dust, should set the option to not propagate transactions below that certain size. In this way, the free market would choose an appropriate minimum transaction size, as people could be waiting for days or weeks for their transactions to propagate the network and/or be included in a block if they are too small.
I can see all sorts of unintended consequences coming out of this. This is a fundamental change of Bitcoin, and really seems to go against the idea of freedom of financial transactions. Now, we will be regulated to only sending transactions of a certain size. No free market choice here...
Bleh.
Miners decide whether they include this patch or not. Same as in all Bitcoin forks. Including transactions is voluntary in all forks that I know of. |
GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
|
|
|
Littleshop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003
|
|
May 05, 2013, 11:14:37 PM |
|
May be a small amount, but this will shut down small businesses for sure, this is horrible news.
Like someone said further up, bitcoin is becoming what they try to stop.
Name one other then gambling? I am not really for this change, but I don't think this is going to shut anyone down. Someone may need to change though. |
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
May 05, 2013, 11:15:07 PM |
|
Now, we will be regulated to only sending transactions of a certain size. No free market choice here...
Shame of them limiting the amount to one satoshi! it should be 1/100000 of a satoshi..... What kind of argument is that? You have a point, but Bitcoin started with an understanding that 1 satoshi was the minimum. Now, we're being told that the limit is 5340 satoshis, with no free-market input on the matter. It's rather disappointing. Individuals should be able to decide what size of transaction is too small - we shouldn't all be forced to suddenly abide by the same arbitrary rule. This is a terrible idea, IMO. Miners and full nodes should be able to decide which transactions to relay and include in blocks, and which transactions to not. An option to set a minimum amount per output or transaction should be built in to the client. So miners, if they believe transactions below a certain size to be dust, should set the option to not propagate transactions below that certain size. Uh. You realize your "should" are describing the change here, right? Yes, but there is no choice in the matter (as far as I am aware). Will there be an option where I can set what transaction amounts I wish to propogate and what transaction amounts I wish to block? This is a terrible idea, IMO. Miners and full nodes should be able to decide which transactions to relay and include in blocks, and which transactions to not. An option to set a minimum amount per output or transaction should be built in to the client. So miners, if they believe transactions below a certain size to be dust, should set the option to not propagate transactions below that certain size. In this way, the free market would choose an appropriate minimum transaction size, as people could be waiting for days or weeks for their transactions to propagate the network and/or be included in a block if they are too small.
I can see all sorts of unintended consequences coming out of this. This is a fundamental change of Bitcoin, and really seems to go against the idea of freedom of financial transactions. Now, we will be regulated to only sending transactions of a certain size. No free market choice here...
Bleh.
Miners decide whether they include this patch or not. Same as in all Bitcoin forks. Including transactions is voluntary in all forks that I know of. True, but then those miners will receive no future updates. If 0.8.2 and onward include this patch, then those who disagree with the patch will be forever left on 0.8.1. |
|
|
|
|
|
radiumsoup
|
|
May 05, 2013, 11:19:30 PM |
|
Um, transaction size is not a bug.
This summary just decided the issue for me, and I am now opposed to this method of battling bloat. Thanks for the extremely elegant explanation  |
PGP fingerprint: 0x85beeabd110803b93d408b502d39b8875b282f86
|
|
|
|
