WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs

[FreeMoney]

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?

[jdillon]

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]

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.

[scintill]

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?

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

[FreeMoney]

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?

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.

[johnblaze]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Thank you.

[johnblaze]

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

i have no problem ending. good day

[bonker]

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.

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

[roy7]

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]

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.

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.

[dree12]

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.

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:

Bitcoin becomes what it tried to eliminate.

[scintill]

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.

[darkmule]

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]

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.