WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs

[scintill]

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.

OK, I guess it shows this thread isn't a total waste of time, but it's so long and vitriolic in places that it's unmanageable for doing any real discussion, and I place the blame for that on the original post that set a negative, unproductive tone.  All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

[1713568597]

1713568597

[1713568597]

1713568597

[1713568597]

1713568597

[1713568597]

1713568597

[scintill]

All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.

Well, I can at least respect that you're willing to put in effort to fight for your principles.

[ProfMac]

All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.

Can you give a scenario where this limit hurts you?

[ProfMac]

All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.

Can you give a scenario where this limit hurts you?

It is censorship, it is controlling how I spend my hard earn money. The white papers say I bitcoin go to the 8th decimal place, this is changing that, so this must be a new coin then right.

No, it's not right.  From what I have read, the new client has an option in bitcoind.conf to set the transaction limit.  This is actually more freedom, not less.

What I asked for is a scenario.  I am thinking of numbers, bitcoin amounts, where you think you would be harmed.  The inputs, the outputs.

[scintill]

The white papers say I bitcoin go to the 8th decimal place, this is changing that, so this must be a new coin then right.

You claimed this the other day, and I still don't believe you.  This is the only official Bitcoin whitepaper I've seen, and I can't find any reference to values having 8 decimal places of precision.  I'm happy to be proven wrong, though, if you have a citation.  By the way, I don't mind "The original implementation allows for 8 decimal places, so we should keep that.", but it's a different argument.  Don't put words into the whitepaper that aren't there.

[scintill]

You claimed this the other day, and I still don't believe you.  This is the only official Bitcoin whitepaper I've seen, and I can't find any reference to values having 8 decimal places of precision.  I'm happy to be proven wrong, though, if you have a citation.  By the way, I don't mind "The original implementation allows for 8 decimal places, so we should keep that.", but it's a different argument.  Don't put words into the whitepaper that aren't there.

I hate break your little heart, but you didn't prove me wrong. Look towards the end of the paper, you see those block halvings, they go into the 0.00000001 decimal place. Meaning that Satoshi had always planned for the currency to have 8 decimal places.

This proves nothing at all if I'm reading the same PDF.  First, search for the string "0000000" (7 zeroes).  The only place it occurs is "P=1.0000000" (end of line).  So that is not 8 decimal places after the dot.

Second, that number appears under "Calculations", right?  That is the probability of a successful second-chain attack, not a block reward.  I don't think specific block rewards or a halving schedule are even in this paper, only the mention that new coins will be the incentive to mine, but that they may eventually go away.

I'm still open to my search function not finding something you are finding, but this sounds like what you described and yet is nothing like what you claim it says.

[boonies4u]

All it does is say the developers are screwing us all over "secretly", not tell us what we can/should do about it, etc.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.

Can you give a scenario where this limit hurts you?

It is censorship, it is controlling how I spend my hard earn money. The white papers say I bitcoin go to the 8th decimal place, this is changing that, so this must be a new coin then right.

This only determines default behavior of miners and clients. Hardly censorship.

[lophie]

Not censorship, It is called a free market (Where miners and transactors exchange fees for services).

---------------> start of Lophie's retarded imaginary land

I have an example for you. Imagine we just decided to use gold as a standard. Follow me in this hypothetical scenario please. So in this scenario no one will accept gold unless it is stamped with a universal stamp that verifies how much gold is in one coin (And a coin can be custom made with a specific quantity of gold embedded in it). Now imagine everyone having an equal chance of working as a stamper, Stamping cost them money as well and since ALL of them use the same stamper, they share the burden of keeping track of the stamped coins and their specific quantities embedded in them!.

Now if you want to create a custom coin which contains 1/1000 of what the minimum amount of gold in a coin is usually used, Plus 1/1000 is in fact so little that it costs the stampers even more to stamp it and keep track of the validity of the stamp! Plus the amount is too little that it is VERY unlikely for you to even use that custom coin. One of the stampers argument is also when the receiver want to spend those very very small coins you would have to put thousands of them in a very heavy pouch and dump it on them to melt them again into one coin which again... cost ALOT.

What the developer did in this suggestion is like suggesting a mechanism to determine that exact line when the amount of gold is just not worth it to stamp and that suggested mechanism allow that amount to change as this hypothetical gold fluctuate in value and those stampers start to see that a lower quantity is accepted or the other way around.

---------------> end of Lophie's retarded imaginary land

What you are calling censorship is like asking someone to make you a copper coin with 1 pico of a gram of gold and complain when the smith refuses because it just doesn't make any sense to do that for you.

Just my opinion. Please be nice. I know the above is written by an idiot.

[lophie]

I don't understand what do you both mean by discussing satoshies not being explicitly mentioned in the paper. The paper is incomplete and everyone knows that. That is why we all refer to the full client as "The Reference Client" still.

[darkmule]

Yes the client can change the amount of dust you keep, in the blockchain and relay, but if I want to send 0.00000001 regardless of the fees. If no miner puts it into the blockchain, and since this is on by default, no one really changes that, it will not be included. That is censorship. Now tell me how do I prove censorship with numbers, cause I never been asked that before.

If any miner does include it, it will be.  So if there is a market for such transactions, they will be included.  And yes, you can send whatever transaction you like.  It doesn't mean you can force anyone to confirm it.

[scintill]

What you are calling censorship is like asking someone to make you a copper coin with 1 pico of a gram of gold and complain when the smith refuses because it just doesn't make any sense to do that for you.

Pretty good analogy, I think.  I might tweak it by saying the smith/stamper could choose to mint your coin at an exorbitant fee, which miners might agree to do with small transactions.  They have all the tools they need to do so, and nobody will stop them.  Yeah, the smith's guild is saying they think such coins are a waste of resources they won't put up with, but that's not censorship because it's not stopping any individual from buying bellows, anvil, etc., and putting in the time to mint their own coin.

I don't understand what do you both mean by discussing satoshies not being explicitly mentioned in the paper. The paper is incomplete and everyone knows that. That is why we all refer to the full client as "The Reference Client" still.

He's claiming that 8 decimal places are in the whitepaper and should therefore be retained.  It might make a little sense if it were in there, but I'm not seeing it.  In any case I agree it's incomplete, so it's generally not a useful standard for purists to compare against anyway.  He may as well be complaining that the current block reward schedule is an illegitimate addition, since, as far as I can see, it is not detailed in the whitepaper either.

[kjj]

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.

I'm all for this.  But, it is harder than it looks.  The tricky part is that you have a bunch of competing pressures that you need to balance against the needs of the user.  It gets hard to quantify some of the decisions you have to make.

I wrote my own script to do a little bit of collections and consolidation.  But my script is not a general solution, it would be worthless, or worse than worthless, to people with different needs.

[scintill]

I like how everyone that quoted me asked the basically the same questions I have answered in the previous posts mean you guys didn't read the whole thread. It is useless debating all of you cause you guys are just so high on the core developer team brainwashing so even if you agreed with my points or thought they were correct, you never admitted. But believe me the people that believe that this is the wrong direction for bitcoin have been talking, and making the necessary connections to make sure the censorship stops.

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The funny thing is this is exactly like the when the foundation, started. I saw the foundation as a hurtful thing to bitcoin, I even discussed with a couple of people who at the time were very powerful, in this community. They told me I was insane. Today they tell me how right I was...

That is right in the end I am always right and you will see how this going to be one of the failures of bitcoins we look back and say we could have stop it.

I am done posting in this thread, cause it is going around and around in a circle.

So, for the record, I see no refutation of my proof that your claim about the whitepaper is unfounded.  That means there is no foundational significance to the choice of 8 divisible decimal places, it's just what was implemented.  Also as I pointed out before, Satoshi himself has supported "censoring" certain transactions years ago.  Surprise, bitcoin is still alive!  Or at least was 2-3 months ago before all the drama around press contacts and this change started up.  I'm sure you would agree it was fine when the Foundation started, and many formerly-possible transactions were already being censored then.

Yes, we haven't all read all 21 pages of unfounded/misquoted claims about the whitepaper, accusations of how bad Gavin is, and the occasional exchange of factual information or logical arguments.  We're trying to get you to tell us why this is so bad, and your answer seems to be summed up as "censorship!" and "whitepaper!".  If your arguments are more nuanced, feel free to link a past post.  I believe I have just demonstrated why the whitepaper is irrelevant, and also argued here that the censorship argument doesn't make much sense given how Bitcoin was from the beginning, which nobody really responded to.  Maybe it's a stupid argument, but tell me why instead of ignoring it or calling me stupid.  I am also done with this thread unless someone is willing to actually engage in a discussion.

Well, I'm glad the future of bitcoin is safe in your capable and wealthy hands. /sarcasm  But seriously, if a few miners continue to support small tx I think it's a triumph for freedom of choice, but is not particularly valuable beyond ideological purism that has little practical relevance, or protection against the "slippery slope" that I don't think is a real danger.

[boonies4u]

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The fact that you can purchase ASICs and use them to confirm your own and others' "dust" transactions is proof that this isn't censorship.

[darkmule]

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The fact that you can purchase ASICs and use them to confirm your own and others' "dust" transactions is proof that this isn't censorship.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

You seem to think you have the right to demand that the miners do something for you for free.  It costs as much to transmit the same number of bytes whether it is for a 1000 BTC transaction or a dust transaction that does nothing except benefit you, for whatever reason you want it, and otherwise just clutters up the blockchain. 

Why should your nearly worthless transaction be entitled to the same consideration in getting into a block as one that actually benefits the network in general?

[CasinoBit]

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The fact that you can purchase ASICs and use them to confirm your own and others' "dust" transactions is proof that this isn't censorship.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

You seem to think you have the right to demand that the miners do something for you for free.  It costs as much to transmit the same number of bytes whether it is for a 1000 BTC transaction or a dust transaction that does nothing except benefit you, for whatever reason you want it, and otherwise just clutters up the blockchain. 

Why should your nearly worthless transaction be entitled to the same consideration in getting into a block as one that actually benefits the network in general?

Because where do you draw the line? First it's the dust transactions then they may block one dollar transactions, next thing you know no-one will accept transactions unless you pay a fortune in transactions fees...

[solex]

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The fact that you can purchase ASICs and use them to confirm your own and others' "dust" transactions is proof that this isn't censorship.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

You seem to think you have the right to demand that the miners do something for you for free.  It costs as much to transmit the same number of bytes whether it is for a 1000 BTC transaction or a dust transaction that does nothing except benefit you, for whatever reason you want it, and otherwise just clutters up the blockchain.  

Why should your nearly worthless transaction be entitled to the same consideration in getting into a block as one that actually benefits the network in general?

Because where do you draw the line? First it's the dust transactions then they may block one dollar transactions, next thing you know no-one will accept transactions unless you pay a fortune in transactions fees...

The line is being drawn between 0.5 and 1.0 cents because this mirrors how the fiat world works. It also reduces abuse of the blockchain as a data-storage waste dump. That's it. Many people have written here in support of that. No one is talking about raising this line above one cent  (except you).

[scintill]

Just cause your so dumb, I just had to point this out...

- IsStandard() check to only include known transaction types in blocks

This is what your talking about right? He is talking about the Scripting in the blockchain

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/1a2e45d8d50d22929ab12ae68189e6171907dba5/src/script.h#L672

Your so stupid, don't even comment anymore, cause your points are invalid because you find one thing you think is aligned with your views, and it isn't.

Stupid people don't comment in this thread anymore, so far that is scintill cause he can't research.

I know exactly what it is.  You have got to be kidding me.  So, certain transactions used to be possible, then Satoshi banned them.  Today, certain other transactions are possible, the developers are banning them in exactly the same way.  It's "censorship" exactly how you say today's is.  If you can't see that, you either don't understand what bitcoin Scripts do, or you're just hero-worshiping Satoshi and carrying a grudge against the current developers.  I mean, this is so blindingly obvious to me I can't fathom how you can possibly contort your logic to gloss over this.  I will try to explain it though.

You act like sending any amount you want (as long as it's 0.00000001 BTC or more, the One True Quantum Value blessed by the Hand of Satoshi), is some basic human right, but the ability to write any script you want is not.  One might say about restricting the possible scripts:

It is censorship, it is controlling how I spend my hard earn money.

Those scripts also govern how you may spend your hard earned money.  Because of Satoshi's censorship, you have fewer ways to spend your money than you did before.  How can you not see the inconsistency in your positions?

I'm aware Script is pretty crappy and not very powerful, and the current standard transaction types support most of the things the average person reasonably wants to do.  Satoshi discouraged the use of full Script because the average person doesn't need it, and supporting it risks making the network weaker -- that's exactly the reason why tiny values are being discontinued!  Complain about value restriction if you want, but it seems completely hypocritical to accept Script censorship in the same breath.

P.S.  If Script had not been crippled early on, maybe it would have been extended and be useful today.  I guess we'll never know, since power-hungry, greedy, corporate-owned Satoshi decided to flex his muscle and show us how he can take away our control over our money! (sarcasm, but using the same terms people are using to describe the modern developers and this change)

[pekv2]

I still agree that this is a censorship.

[jgarzik]

Or as I like to say:  all bitcoins come with strings attached.

That is, the ability to spend bitcoins is precisely and individually defined by the script language.

Each bitcoin transaction may have different rules for spending.

And 99.999% of the possibilities were years-ago classified by Satoshi as "non-standard", and not relayed or mined by default.  Only a few transaction types were whitelisted.