Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 03:09:19 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register 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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs  (Read 58471 times)
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 04:51:07 AM
 #341

I apologize if this was already asked and answered, but I didn't see it.

This change seems like it would make a 1 BTC transfer fail if the chosen input was 1.000001 BTC because the change would be below the threshold for being passed on. Will this be made obvious to users or will it just not confirm with no explanation? Could this be solved by automatically making the fee eat the whole amount of the change?

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
1711724959
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711724959

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711724959
Reply with quote  #2

1711724959
Report to moderator
1711724959
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711724959

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711724959
Reply with quote  #2

1711724959
Report to moderator
Remember that Bitcoin is still beta software. Don't put all of your money into BTC!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711724959
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711724959

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711724959
Reply with quote  #2

1711724959
Report to moderator
jdillon (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 18


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 04:53:12 AM
 #342

Who gets to decide how slow is too slow?
(...)
Solo mining or running a pool will very soon require investing in a reasonably fast network connection and a machine with at least a few gigabytes of memory.

Knocking the slowest N% of solo miners/pools off the network every year (where N is less than 20 or so) is not a crisis.
BTC Guild right now.
Okey dokey.

Have you contributed any patches to p2pool to make it more efficient / easier to install / etc? If not, why not if you're so worried about centralization?

(honest question, I don't keep up with p2pool development because I'm personally not terribly worried about mining centralization)

Peter isn't stupid you know. You just said exactly why he isn't working on P2Pool yourself: if the blocksize limit is removed like you and the big Bitcoin players paying your salary want, running a node will cost thousands of dollars per year in equipment and network bandwidth.

Why on earth would any miner want to spend that much money when they can just mine at BTC Guild instead and increase their profit margin?

The worst part is you know this, and spread this bullshit anyway.

So lets ask you a question, in all those meetings you have at the Foundation, who is present? What are the likes of big payment processors like BitPay telling you to say about the blocksize limit? What do they want, and do they care about Bitcoin's decentralization at all?
raze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 04:57:57 AM
 #343

The only thing this thread has taught me is that I'm now a little more uncertain of the future of Bitcoin. I did have high hopes for it, but all this bickering in the community over one patch, people making hard forks etc. is only going to make it worse in the end.

BTC --16FPbgyUZdTm1voAfi26VZ3RH7apTFGaPm
LTC -- Lhd3gmj84BWqx7kQgqUA7gyoogsLeJbCXb
PPC -- PRpKGjgjNLFv8eR7VVv7jBaP8aexDFqk4C
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 252


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 05:15:49 AM
 #344

I apologize if this was already asked and answered, but I didn't see it.

This change seems like it would make a 1 BTC transfer fail if the chosen input was 1.000001 BTC because the change would be below the threshold for being passed on. Will this be made obvious to users or will it just not confirm with no explanation? Could this be solved by automatically making the fee eat the whole amount of the change?

How would you find it in 19 pages of insinuations about the developers' ulterior motives and such? Roll Eyes

It seems "dusty" change outputs will not be created.  If they would be, the dust will just be added to the fee.  Source.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 06:06:15 AM
 #345

I apologize if this was already asked and answered, but I didn't see it.

This change seems like it would make a 1 BTC transfer fail if the chosen input was 1.000001 BTC because the change would be below the threshold for being passed on. Will this be made obvious to users or will it just not confirm with no explanation? Could this be solved by automatically making the fee eat the whole amount of the change?

How would you find it in 19 pages of insinuations about the developers' ulterior motives and such? Roll Eyes

It seems "dusty" change outputs will not be created.  If they would be, the dust will just be added to the fee.  Source.

Thanks a bunch.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
johnblaze
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 06:17:44 AM
Last edit: May 12, 2013, 06:32:28 AM by johnblaze
 #346


Not the free market, if this was true, then we never have panic sells, that drive the price down. Also no bots would make money. Trust me, I know this stuff, the market is dumb in reactions to certain events.

trust him^^^

he KNOWS his stuff.

LOL:

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
johnblaze
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 06:33:15 AM
 #347

no argument is needed when you make such a broad, general statement like that and pass it off as truth

edit/
but i guess since you want me to just trust you, fine, i'll take your word for it.

after all, you know this stuff.
johnblaze
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 06:46:38 AM
 #348

The market is dumb, their is a few really smart people in the market, but for the most part, as a whole the market is dumb.

the market is not dumb. the market is always right.

you should refrain from calling other people dumb when you don't know the difference between "there" and "their"

stick to programming. perhaps you actually do know about that stuff. but then again, probably not, since you're for hire. good coders are hard to come by and usually locked up
johnblaze
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 06:58:53 AM
 #349

gweedo, why are you so mad pal?

just because someone else corrected you before me, doesn't make me a follower. if i had read your ridiculousness before the other guy, then i would have been the leader and corrected you first.

the people most afraid that their beliefs are wrong are always the ones screaming the loudest that they are right
johnblaze
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 07:05:31 AM
 #350

since you claim the market is dumb, then i suppose you claim that you know more than the market?

if thats the case, then surely you're willing to place a wager based on your superior knowledge
johnblaze
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 07:08:07 AM
 #351

So what the wager.

you're the one with the supposed knowledge, throw out your offer

i'll take the collective knowledge of the millions of dollars on Gox vs whatever knowledge you claim to have while you collect your 0.005 btc advertising fee for a listing on your homepage
jdillon (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 18


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 07:10:31 AM
 #352

gweedo and johnblaze: Take your silly fight elsewhere and don't clog up this important discussion.

Thank you.
johnblaze
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 07:12:57 AM
 #353

apologies. he keeps making demands because he is so insecure about his position.

i have no problem ending. good day
bonker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 502



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 07:16:57 AM
 #354

This is Satoshi critics to existing system Bitcoin should be opposite to. They breaking the Bible.

Quote
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.

hmm...

bitcoin BECOMES what they TRY to get rid off

BITCOIN becomes what they try to GET RID off

bitcoin becomes WHAT they try to GET RID OFF

....no, I still don't understand this phrase

.Minter.                       ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
                  ▄▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▄▄
               ▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▄
            ,▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▄
          ,▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▄
         ▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
        ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▀█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
       ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓    █▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
      █▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓    ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
      ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓▄   ▀▓▀   ▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
     ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▄     ▄▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
     ╟▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▄ ▄▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
     ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
      ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
      ║▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
       ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓   ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
         ╙▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀
           ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀
             ▀█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀
                ▀█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▀
                     ▀▀██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▀▀
||

╓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒
▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▀▀▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓         ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓         ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌        ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓         ▀╜        ╙▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                      ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌                       ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                        ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓         ▓▓▓▓▓▌         ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌         ▓▓▓▓▓          ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓⌐         ▓▓▓▓▓         ╣▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓         ▀█▀▀^         ╫▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌                      ▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     ▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                 #▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
 ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀
 ╙▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀
WALLET




                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█
roy7
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 07:21:44 AM
 #355

If you have a 0.0000001 output but it would cost 100x as much in fees to spend it would you spend it?  Of course not.  Kinda like mailing a penny (at a cost of $0.46) to your bank to apply to your mortgage principal.  Nobody does that it doesn't make economical sense.  So these uneconomically outputs are likely NEVER going to be spent.  Each one that is produced won't be spent and thus won't be pruned and will remain in the UXTO forever (or a very long time on average) this is causing the UXTO to bloat and will continue to bloat as there is no reason for anyone to ever spend these outputs (and spending is what allows an output to be pruned).

Perhaps it's time for the official bitcoin-qt client to support an auto sweep of inputs into a single transaction  back to yourself on a regular basis. I've seen other threads where people discuss their techniques for doing this manually, but to my knowledge no client automates it yet.
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 09:48:39 AM
 #356

This is Satoshi critics to existing system Bitcoin should be opposite to. They breaking the Bible.

Quote
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.

hmm...

bitcoin BECOMES what they TRY to get rid off

BITCOIN becomes what they try to GET RID off

bitcoin becomes WHAT they try to GET RID OFF

....no, I still don't understand this phrase
its simple: Bitcoin becomes what they try to get rid off.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1076



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 03:52:10 PM
 #357

This is Satoshi critics to existing system Bitcoin should be opposite to. They breaking the Bible.

Quote
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.

hmm...

bitcoin BECOMES what they TRY to get rid off

BITCOIN becomes what they try to GET RID off

bitcoin becomes WHAT they try to GET RID OFF

....no, I still don't understand this phrase
its simple: Bitcoin becomes what they try to get rid off.

Maybe if of were used right, this phrase would be more understandable.

Plus the terminating preposition is annoying. Try this:

Quote
Bitcoin becomes what it tried to eliminate.
scintill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 252


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 06:42:35 PM
 #358

gweedo and johnblaze: Take your silly fight elsewhere and don't clog up this important discussion.

Thank you.

Oh, please.  Don't act like you expected reasonable informed discussion, naming the topic with "WARNING!" and "block" and an OP containing accusations about "hiding away all the debate on GitHub away from the general public", "secrecy", and scare words like "[you will] find yourself shutdown overnight" if you deal with picopayments.

There's been slightly more reasonable discussion at places like this since before you created this thread.

1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 06:57:33 PM
 #359

gweedo and johnblaze: Take your silly fight elsewhere and don't clog up this important discussion.

Thank you.

Oh, please.  Don't act like you expected reasonable informed discussion, naming the topic with "WARNING!" and "block" and an OP containing accusations about "hiding away all the debate on GitHub away from the general public", "secrecy", and scare words like "[you will] find yourself shutdown overnight" if you deal with picopayments.

Indeed.  Since when is GitHub "hidden?" 

I also note Gavin is participating on the legitimate tech thread, just not this troll thread.
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 07:17:40 PM
 #360

I also note Gavin is participating on the legitimate tech thread, just not this troll thread.

Uhmm he participated last month so you can see he is really in that thread. Gavin is the biggest problem to bitcoin, so many people don't see this ;( so sad.
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 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!