Bitcoin Forum
February 28, 2017, 01:14:17 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.2  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Boycott 0.8.2  (Read 16955 times)
Daily Anarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 615



View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 09:21:08 PM
 #1

Let's see the power of the free-market flex its muscle and boycott an upgrade.

I think this will actually be a good experiment. It will show the world that we aren't being led by the nose by a few devs.

Don't get me wrong, I have all the respect in the world for the devs, Gavin included.

But this is not a popular fix. I think it's safe to say the large majority of Bitcoiners DO NOT want to block microtransactions.

Let's show the devs who's boss and refuse to upgrade to 0.8.2. unless the "patch" is removed.

Discover anarcho-capitalism today!
1488244457
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1488244457

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1488244457
Reply with quote  #2

1488244457
Report to moderator
1488244457
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1488244457

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1488244457
Reply with quote  #2

1488244457
Report to moderator
1488244457
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1488244457

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1488244457
Reply with quote  #2

1488244457
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
farlack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:23:54 PM
 #2

Agreed, that's the point of bitcoin, so we can say f-off if we don't agree with what they think.

Its democracy, not dictatorship on how this shit is.
rxw
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:25:01 PM
 #3

What is the dev's reasoning for blocking microtransactions? Is it to avoid people spamming the blockchain?
phantastisch
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:26:13 PM
 #4

What is the dev's reasoning for blocking microtransactions? Is it to avoid people spamming the blockchain?

Yes.

GPG : 57C2B3A5
Mimblewimble. Mimblewimble. Mimblewimble.
Daily Anarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 615



View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 09:28:33 PM
 #5

If you want the debate over the reasoning or efficacy of the "patch" I recommend this link:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196138.0

This is a thread for rallying boycotters who have made up their minds that this "patch" is junk and want to stick with the 0.8.1 client.

Discover anarcho-capitalism today!
Fiyasko
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Okey Dokey Lokey


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:30:29 PM
 #6

Let's see the power of the free-market flex its muscle and boycott an upgrade.

I think this will actually be a good experiment. It will show the world that we aren't being led by the nose by a few devs.

Don't get me wrong, I have all the respect in the world for the devs, Gavin included.

But this is not a popular fix. I think it's safe to say the large majority of Bitcoiners DO NOT want to block microtransactions.

Let's show the devs who's boss and refuse to upgrade to 0.8.2. unless the "patch" is removed.
From what i've read, what your saying is that 0.8.2. is going to not allow micro transactions? What defines a micro transaction?
Bitcoin was designed to be divisible by 8 decimal places, If we are removing some of those decimals we are undermining the entire structure of bitcoin!

I can fully understand and agree that a transaction of .00000001 should be blocked though

http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=DingoRabiit&sign=ANY&type=RECV <-My Ratings
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.0 GAWminers and associated things are not to be trusted, Especially the "mineral" exchange
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 09:33:26 PM
 #7

Gavin has an ego and it needs to be under control, he is doing interviews now instead of fixing the blockchain bloat the correct way, not thru censorship of transactions. WELCOME TO BITCOIN BANKING!

Want to earn 2500 SATOSHIS per hour? Come Chat and Chill in https://goseemybits.com/lobby
bitcoiners
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:34:25 PM
 #8

Let's see the power of the free-market flex its muscle and boycott an upgrade.

I think this will actually be a good experiment. It will show the world that we aren't being led by the nose by a few devs.

Don't get me wrong, I have all the respect in the world for the devs, Gavin included.

But this is not a popular fix. I think it's safe to say the large majority of Bitcoiners DO NOT want to block microtransactions.

Let's show the devs who's boss and refuse to upgrade to 0.8.2. unless the "patch" is removed.
From what i've read, what your saying is that 0.8.2. is going to not allow micro transactions? What defines a micro transaction?


You mean who?  Gavin.  Gavin now decides how we spend our Bitcoins.

Op make a poll!
skang
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 435


from democracy to self-rule.


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:35:44 PM
 #9

This is sad in so many ways. To sum it up :

*1. One guy is deciding stuff. Backed by thedev group; not very decentralized.

*2. No alternatives to resist this.

*3. Bitcoin no longer equals 100mil satoshis! only 00000 !!!

*4. Goes against the ideology of the original paper by Satoshi which clearly states that btc is created for small transactions.

*5. I believe value of btc will rise. at 184+ you wont be able to pay in pennies. At 1842+ not in tens ofpennies. At 18416+ not in dollars. [I believe btc can rise upto this value]

*6. The sum of 54.3uBTC was chosen based on 'current value in dollars' it seems. Disappointing! Why are we comparing to fiat? We aim to move away from it.

Practically this is a change in the protocol and the way bitcoin works.

"India is the guru of the nations, the physician of the human soul in its profounder maladies; she is destined once more to remould the life of the world and restore the peace of the human spirit.
But Swaraj is the necessary condition of her work and before she can do the work, she must fulfil the condition."
Daily Anarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 615



View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 09:37:15 PM
 #10

This is sad in so many ways. To sum it up :

*2. No alternatives to resist this.


You can very easily resist this. That's what this topic is all about. Simply refuse to "upgrade" to 0.8.2.

Discover anarcho-capitalism today!
bitcoiners
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:39:47 PM
 #11

This is sad in so many ways. To sum it up :

*2. No alternatives to resist this.


You can very easily resist this. That's what this topic is all about. Simply refuse to "upgrade" to 0.8.2.

The problem being... If miners upgrade to 0.8.2 then they won't even see your transaction.
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2100



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:41:10 PM
 #12

I can fully understand and agree that a transaction of .00000001 should be blocked though
It's not a protocol rule and miners are free to include transactions with outputs smaller. The change causes miners not include transactions with outputs which are a small fraction of the fee amount they have configured to treat as zero for the purpose of priority. They can change the setting and the network doesn't mind. It's a default, not a rule.

This is expected to reduce the problem of people creating data storage transactions which are uneconomical (or impossible) to redeem, but shouldn't effect actual financial transactions (even if the value of Bitcoin goes through the roof— as people will adjust the fee-treated-as-zero as that happens, and the defaults will be updated as time goes on, the network isn't require to be consistent as— again— it's not a protocol rule).

*4. Goes against the ideology of the original paper by Satoshi which clearly states that btc is created for small transactions.
IIRC, Satoshi himself put in the first rule against very small transactions— making the node behavior to only mine or relay if a fee of 0.01 or greater was provided for transactions without any outputs smaller than 0.01 in order to stop dust flooding attacks. Because fees of 0.01 became rather large they were subsequently lowered to 0.0005 and now 0.0001 but a single fee is being abused to cram many megabytes of child porn website directories and other such junk in unspendable txoutputs. Requiring larger outputs is hopefully less intrusive than requiring the same value as a larger fee.
BitcoinUK
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:43:25 PM
 #13

I can fully understand and agree that a transaction of .00000001 should be blocked though

in a few months/years time when bitcoin is $1000 each then the minimal purchase you can make is just over 5c

so imagine
companies that want to do penny per click advertising cant use bitcoin
all transaction amounts would be rounded up to 10c increments to avoid losing profit. so a 75c chewing gum becomes 80c
this is the same as the governments getting rid of coins and only using whole pounds/dollar notes.

so i too say boycott the upgrade

elvisrene
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:45:01 PM
 #14

they are being payed to fuck up the chain and bitcoin
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 09:45:29 PM
 #15

I can fully understand and agree that a transaction of .00000001 should be blocked though
It's not a protocol rule and miners are free to include transactions with outputs smaller. The change causes miners not include transactions with outputs which are a small fraction of the fee amount they have configured to treat as zero for the purpose of priority. They can change the setting and the network doesn't mind. It's a default, not a rule.

This is expected to reduce the problem of people creating data storage transactions which are uneconomical (or impossible) to redeem, but shouldn't effect actual financial transactions (even if the value of Bitcoin goes through the roof— as people will adjust the fee-treated-as-zero as that happens, and the defaults will be updated as time goes on, the network isn't require to be consistent as— again— it's not a protocol rule).

It shouldn't be on by default, it should be off by default like it is in the white papers. Instead of being here, maybe actually try and figure out the blockchain size problem correctly, without censorship.

Want to earn 2500 SATOSHIS per hour? Come Chat and Chill in https://goseemybits.com/lobby
skang
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 435


from democracy to self-rule.


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:52:30 PM
 #16

*4. Goes against the ideology of the original paper by Satoshi which clearly states that btc is created for small transactions.
IIRC, Satoshi himself put in the first rule against very small transactions— making the node behavior to only mine or relay if a fee of 0.01 or greater was provided for transactions without any outputs smaller than 0.01 in order to stop dust flooding attacks. Because fees of 0.01 became rather large they were subsequently lowered to 0.0005 and now 0.0001 but a single fee is being abused to cram many megabytes of child porn website directories and other such junk in unspendable txoutputs. Requiring larger outputs is hopefully less intrusive than requiring the same value as a larger fee.

Right.

So adjust the fees!! That is why the mechanism of fees was put in place cause it's adjustable.

"India is the guru of the nations, the physician of the human soul in its profounder maladies; she is destined once more to remould the life of the world and restore the peace of the human spirit.
But Swaraj is the necessary condition of her work and before she can do the work, she must fulfil the condition."
jdillon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:53:49 PM
 #17

What is the dev's reasoning for blocking microtransactions? Is it to avoid people spamming the blockchain?

Yes in particular people putting data onto the blockchain encoded as transactions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191039.0

There isn't any way to block that yet other than making it more expensive.
kokojie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526



View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 09:55:41 PM
 #18

This is sad in so many ways. To sum it up :

*1. One guy is deciding stuff. Backed by thedev group; not very decentralized.

*2. No alternatives to resist this.

*3. Bitcoin no longer equals 100mil satoshis! only 00000 !!!

*4. Goes against the ideology of the original paper by Satoshi which clearly states that btc is created for small transactions.

*5. I believe value of btc will rise. at 184+ you wont be able to pay in pennies. At 1842+ not in tens ofpennies. At 18416+ not in dollars. [I believe btc can rise upto this value]

*6. The sum of 54.3uBTC was chosen based on 'current value in dollars' it seems. Disappointing! Why are we comparing to fiat? We aim to move away from it.

Practically this is a change in the protocol and the way bitcoin works.


There is, the alternative is LTC, it's designed for micro-transactions that BTC chain can't handle. Like I said a year ago, LTC will be a transactional currency, while BTC will be a reserve currency (no tiny transactions allowed at all). LTC is a great supplement for BTC.

If my post has been helpful, send me some love -> BTC: 1kokojUapmWqCqPw3Ch2rjcVh57tJEzka | PPC: PDyXAgA8eH47gokVW6zVZPSuu15aao5nZF | Bitshares: kokojie
My reputation
jdillon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 09:56:43 PM
 #19

It shouldn't be on by default, it should be off by default like it is in the white papers. Instead of being here, maybe actually try and figure out the blockchain size problem correctly, without censorship.

Unless the blockchain size is truly unlimited, which is impossible, someone is always going to get their transactions blocked.

The demand side of supply and demand for blockchain space is unlimited. You can always use it to timestamp data at least, so why not timestamp everything you can get your hands on if transactions are really cheap?

We need to find a balance between cheap transactions and decentralization. I believe 1MB is fine for the forseeable future, but other people think differently.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 09:56:56 PM
 #20

Has nobody read this thread?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191425.0;all

This pull request is the first step towards a market between miners (who want higher fees) and merchants/users (who want lower fees, but also want their transactions confirmed). Miners can already control what fees they accept, this pull lets users control (very clumsily, improvements on the road map) the fee they are willing to pay.

Eventually the goal is to have no hard-coded magic fee levels at all, so manual adjustments to reflect big exchange rate swings aren't needed any more. But we're not there yet.
If that's the direction the reference client is going then I consider this to be a positive change.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!