WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs

[BitcoinAshley]

Miners have ALWAYS been free not to include your tx in a block.  Miners everyday routinely don't include tx in the next block (thus the unconfirmed list).

Initially the functionality of the bitcoind were so crude miners had little control over what tx were included.  That wasn't intended it was simply the result of limited development and higher priorities.  Over time more functionality was added which allowed miners to fine tune their transaction selection.

Today miners can and do exclude transactions based on:
a) priority
b) block size
c) tx fees

and starting in 0.8.2
d) output size

0.8.2 simply gives miners the ability to better control the transactions they want to include.  If it wasn't in bitcoind miners could write custom patches to do the very single thing.  Satoshi always intended for miners to have the control over which tx to include.  Nothing has changed, the devs have given miners the tools to make more informed transaction selection. Now miners are "big boys" and if they see a lot of value in including 100 satoshi or even 1 satoshi transactions they can.  They simply need to change the configuration file.  Given miners already set a half dozen configuration values related to min fees, block size, priority, etc one more config value is hardly a burden for a miner.

If you think bitcoin is better off with 1 satoshi spam ... then convince enough nodes to mine them and you can spam away.  The reality is you KNOW miners don't want to include dust spam however prior to 0.8.2 they lacked tools good enough to make optimal tx selection.  No miners wants to bloat the chain with uneconomical spam, it makes their future jobs more difficult.  All those uneconomical outputs have a high probability of never being spent and thus they bloat the UXTO.  The UXTO governs the resources miners (and all full nodes) use to validate tx and blocks.  

It seems you are afraid of the free market.  Freedom is about choice.  You are free to create dust spam, nobody can stop you.  Miners are free to chose not to include that dust spam up till now miners lacked good tools to exclude those tx.  That isn't "freedom" it is merely a lack of choice due to insufficient development.  Starting in 0.8.2 you won't be able to stop miners from exercising their freedom to not include uneconomical transactions. 

Quoted, as it is the post with the highest SNR in this thread.

UXTO bloat can potentially be a big problem in the future if it is not addressed.

The sky is not falling people.

QFT!
Something is seriously, seriously wrong here...
The people with the tinfoil hats are scared of the free market!
Isn't that, like, backwards or something?

[1714183797]

1714183797

[1714183797]

1714183797

[1714183797]

1714183797

[TraderTimm]

The only ones afraid are the same that are abusing the blockchain.

Luckily, we'll soon be rid of their abusive behavior. Thanks for pushing us to this point, fellas - you're all such real "chums".

[The-Real-Link]

As was said, to see this develop isn't completely unsurprising given anyone who watched this market in the past few months.

How many microtransctions (and by micro I mean 0.01 or less) do we need cluttering up the system before something grinds to a halt.  It seemed to be screwing up Gox enough, as is, though granted it's both parties' fault.

if 0.8.2 gives us miners control, that's very cool.  I know some wouldn't like the concept as it goes against true freedom in Bitcoin-Land but I'd rather have something work VS something so slow and bloated that it's unusuable and hinders progress and development.

Also I realistically figure that hey, this was control that was patched and implemented.  If uBTC or such ever becomes such a valuable resource and coins are far above $1,000 (where micro payments could be say, $1 or so), then yeah, they could always revisit the code again and adjust accordingly.  Even if I'm misunderstood in my explainations, the idea still stands that I don't recall hearing this is a forever-permanent kind of thing.

I think given the problems with spam and such we've seen though lately, that it was a good move to make until the usage and infrastructure catches up further.

[wolongong]

Finding a way to halt the flood of micro transactions, fine, but why does that have to kill something like getting the correct amount of change back from a slightly larger input?

[gmaxwell]

Finding a way to halt the flood of micro transactions, fine, but why does that have to kill something like getting the correct amount of change back from a slightly larger input?

It doesn't relative to past versions: change under 0.0005 BTC was already generally converted into fees (because any output >0.01 forced the transaction to have a fee of at least 0.0005 BTC/kb, so any change less than 0.0005 was converted to fee in order to avoid an even larger fee)

[wolongong]

Would you send 1 penny to your mortgage company to pay down the principal if it costs you $0.46 min to mail it?  Of course not. 

Stuff like this happens every day in financial markets. The ECB announcing the 2 digit precision of the EUR will stay but going to make it impossible to settle cents through TARGET2 would be an administrative nightmare. There is another currency, I forgot which one, that pulls crap like this and is next to impossible to plug into standard STP systems.

[Theraty]

As was said, to see this develop isn't completely unsurprising given anyone who watched this market in the past few months.

How many microtransctions (and by micro I mean 0.01 or less) do we need cluttering up the system before something grinds to a halt.  It seemed to be screwing up Gox enough, as is, though granted it's both parties' fault.

if 0.8.2 gives us miners control, that's very cool.  I know some wouldn't like the concept as it goes against true freedom in Bitcoin-Land but I'd rather have something work VS something so slow and bloated that it's unusuable and hinders progress and development.

Also I realistically figure that hey, this was control that was patched and implemented.  If uBTC or such ever becomes such a valuable resource and coins are far above $1,000 (where micro payments could be say, $1 or so), then yeah, they could always revisit the code again and adjust accordingly.  Even if I'm misunderstood in my explainations, the idea still stands that I don't recall hearing this is a forever-permanent kind of thing.

I think given the problems with spam and such we've seen though lately, that it was a good move to make until the usage and infrastructure catches up further.

I think you raise a good point. Every time the bitcoin reaches a new target amount, say $1000 per bitcoin, the transaction amount can move down one decimal place. As it stands, there is no need for transactions less than .0001BTC.

If this was to happen it could drastically improve the speed of transactions but could have an effect on the development of the currency in third world countries where the bitcoins can give help improving their communities.

[wolongong]

Finding a way to halt the flood of micro transactions, fine, but why does that have to kill something like getting the correct amount of change back from a slightly larger input?

It doesn't relative to past versions: change under 0.0005 BTC was already generally converted into fees (because any output >0.01 forced the transaction to have a fee of at least 0.0005 BTC/kb, so any change less than 0.0005 was converted to fee in order to avoid an even larger fee)

QT client is one thing. Won't be relayed, won't be mined is something else.

[darkmule]

if 0.8.2 gives us miners control, that's very cool.  I know some wouldn't like the concept as it goes against true freedom in Bitcoin-Land but I'd rather have something work VS something so slow and bloated that it's unusuable and hinders progress and development.

There may and probably will come a time when the interests of the users of the currency (who are actually using it as a currency) collide with the interests of miners.  There's a natural tension there.  (One that the market should be able to resolve, usually.)

However, speaking as a user, I have had numerous transactions from 3-10 BTC where I would sit and watch, sometimes for hours, while floods of dust transactions worth less than a penny went by on the blockchain while my own transaction languished without a single confirmation.  It is quite infuriating.  Usually, things go smoothly.  When they don't, though, it is hard to have patience for these bullshit little transactions.

[boonies4u]

I dont believe this will happen to the Bitcoin chain at all, It just isnt likely considering how much profit miners still can make.

Right, because miners depend so much from fees. 

[Theraty]

I dont believe this will happen to the Bitcoin chain at all, It just isnt likely considering how much profit miners still can make.

But doesn't the extra transactions make the transfer rate slower. I mean with all the transactions under say .01 included in the system, wouldn't all other transactions and confirmations slower?

[BitHits]

BRING ON THE FORKS!

ITS PAST DUE WE FIX BITCOIN!

E-Mail BitHits.info@gmail.com if you are interested in doing this.

I'll be starting a website in the near future dedicated to fixing BitCoin before self-righteous fucks destroy it with what 'they think' is best for BitCoin.

[ijphlrnxewho]

it's been weeks since I follow up with bitcoin.
Did they stop the transaction fee completely? Yes or No?

[Theraty]

BRING ON THE FORKS!

ITS PAST DUE WE FIX BITCOIN!

E-Mail BitHits.info@gmail.com if you are interested in doing this.

I'll be starting a website in the near future dedicated to fixing BitCoin before self-righteous fucks destroy it with what 'they think' is best for BitCoin.

A form of consensus on major issues with bitcoins woul be very helpful here. Even if you are right about all your fixes, you still need to get majority vote on major changes. But definitely could go a long way.

[Mazakguy]

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

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577

Many Bitcoin users are going to be affected and see their funds blocked. For instance ASICMiner share payments, BitHits faucet payments, anyone depending on microtransactions. If you depend on small payments you need to change your business model now or find yourself shutdown overnight.

Gavin: It's sad that you aren't willing to speak about this publicly on the forums, rather than hiding away all the debate on GitHub away from the general public.

edit: To be clear, I like the patch: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577#issuecomment-17138223

What I don't like is when I realized not once had Gavin or anyone else in the development team made a public statement that this change was coming down the line. If I hadn't made this post, for all I know it would have been hidden away in the next Bitcoin-QT with no warning at all, right when we all have to upgrade before May 15th.

Why isn't think on your blog or someone else so people have time to change the way their businesses operate? Why the secrecy?

For the record, the forums no longer count as "public" as in "well informed public" but "public" as in "mob". I can understand why this wouldn't have been done on the forum. No offense, but you're a user with 28 Posts and you're essentially accusing one of the most important guys in bitcoin of some sort of underhanded secrecy. That doesn't mean that you can't be right, but still, it's a mob mentality down here, and there are thousands of us down here ready to tear anything apart.

Well if walks and sounds like a duck, it is.  What makes this Gavin person any more important the anyone else?  I am willing to bet he profits from this somehow. Maybe all us unwashed masses should revolt. Down with the king

[qualalol]

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

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577

Many Bitcoin users are going to be affected and see their funds blocked. For instance ASICMiner share payments, BitHits faucet payments, anyone depending on microtransactions. If you depend on small payments you need to change your business model now or find yourself shutdown overnight.

Gavin: It's sad that you aren't willing to speak about this publicly on the forums, rather than hiding away all the debate on GitHub away from the general public.

edit: To be clear, I like the patch: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577#issuecomment-17138223

What I don't like is when I realized not once had Gavin or anyone else in the development team made a public statement that this change was coming down the line. If I hadn't made this post, for all I know it would have been hidden away in the next Bitcoin-QT with no warning at all, right when we all have to upgrade before May 15th.

Why isn't think on your blog or someone else so people have time to change the way their businesses operate? Why the secrecy?

For the record, the forums no longer count as "public" as in "well informed public" but "public" as in "mob". I can understand why this wouldn't have been done on the forum. No offense, but you're a user with 28 Posts and you're essentially accusing one of the most important guys in bitcoin of some sort of underhanded secrecy. That doesn't mean that you can't be right, but still, it's a mob mentality down here, and there are thousands of us down here ready to tear anything apart.

Well if walks and sounds like a duck, it is.  What makes this Gavin person any more important the anyone else?  I am willing to bet he profits from this somehow. Maybe all us unwashed masses should revolt. Down with the king

What makes Gavin important is that he maintains a bitcoin client, and a whole bunch of people decide to use his bitcoin client. They could instead very easily decide to have their bitcoin client supplied by any other random person that decides to maintain their own client. If everyone started obtaining their bitcoin client from someone else then Gavin would no longer be important. Everyone is free to choose who they obtain their bitcoin client from. They can even start maintaining their own bitcoin client. You can find the sources here, no one is stopping you from having your own client. Good luck in convincing others to use your client!

[DeathAndTaxes]

BRING ON THE FORKS!

ITS PAST DUE WE FIX BITCOIN!

E-Mail BitHits.info@gmail.com if you are interested in doing this.

I'll be starting a website in the near future dedicated to fixing BitCoin before self-righteous fucks destroy it with what 'they think' is best for BitCoin.

Why do you hate freedom?

Miners now (post 0.8.2) will have the CHOICE (but not requirement) to restrict uneconomical transactions to improve the efficiency of the network.

What about choice do you find so scary?

[David Rabahy]

Does it matter if one already has "dust"?  How can one tell if they have "dust" in their wallet?

[darkmule]

Well if walks and sounds like a duck, it is.  What makes this Gavin person any more important the anyone else?

Are you fucking kidding?  He is the lead developer.  That means he actually produces things of value.  You think he isn't important to Bitcoin?  Well, go and do something better than he's doing and maybe you'll be lead developer and have something worth saying on the subject.

[scintill]

What makes Gavin important is that he maintains a bitcoin client, and a whole bunch of people decide to use his bitcoin client. They could instead very easily decide to have their bitcoin client supplied by any other random person that decides to maintain their own client. If everyone started obtaining their bitcoin client from someone else then Gavin would no longer be important. Everyone is free to choose who they obtain their bitcoin client from. They can even start maintaining their own bitcoin client. You can find the sources here, no one is stopping you from having your own client. Good luck in convincing others to use your client!

While I'm with Gavin and the other developers on this, this is a bit of an oversimplification.  Yeah, he works on the client bitcoin-qt, but the same code is part of "bitcoind", which is the backbone of the Bitcoin network.  I'm not aware of anyone mining through any other server, and it's not recommended right now.  bitcoind therefore has a huge influence on what goes into blocks, which essentially defines what happens on the Bitcoin network.

That said, I agree with your essential point.  To expand: People have always been free to custom-patch bitcoind to their liking.  This change even makes it possible to configure more network parameters without your own code changes.  Configure/patch yours however you want, but don't whine when the rest of the network disagrees with you.  You've never had some right to force your wishes on the network.  If you want that, go somewhere else.

BRING ON THE FORKS!

ITS PAST DUE WE FIX BITCOIN!

E-Mail BitHits.info@gmail.com if you are interested in doing this.

I'll be starting a website in the near future dedicated to fixing BitCoin before self-righteous fucks destroy it with what 'they think' is best for BitCoin.

Haha, I can't help but think you sound self-righteous yourself.  You're going to "fix it" with what you think is best, but they can't?  I'm sure you, with your 3-month old account and few apparent contributions, know more than Gavin who has been around and contributing since 2010.  But go ahead, fork Bitcoin, I think it's been a whole couple of days since the last altcoin was announced.  Have fun re-investing the collective blood, sweat, and tears that have made Bitcoin what it is today.  Bitcoin's a lot more than the code in bitcoind.