Boycott 0.8.2

[mobile4ever]

I see the word "freedom" mentioned in this thread a bunch of times.

Here is a quote from Jefferson:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

[1715258211]

1715258211

[1715258211]

1715258211

[1715258211]

1715258211

[DeathAndTaxes]

I see the word "freedom" mentioned in this thread a bunch of times.

Here is a quote from Jefferson:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Luckily you still have the FREEDOM to create spammy uneconomcial transactions (once which cost more in fees that they are worth spending).  You just have to find someone willing to mine it for you.

<GASP>  Freedom means opportunity not forcing others to bend to your will. 

Spammers have the freedom to create spammy worthless transactions.
Nodes have the freedom to either relay them or not.
Miners have the freedom to decide what transactions go into the current block.

[notme]

I see the word "freedom" mentioned in this thread a bunch of times.

Here is a quote from Jefferson:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Luckily you still have the FREEDOM to create spammy uneconomcial transactions (once which cost more in fees that they are worth spending).  You just have to find someone willing to mine it for you.

<GASP>  Freedom means opportunity not forcing others to bend to your will. 

Spammers have the freedom to create spammy worthless transactions.
Nodes have the freedom to either relay them or not.
Miners have the freedom to decide what transactions go into the current block.

Exactly.. everyone is bitching about something easily configurable.

[Eri]

Real world question: I'm using as many faucets as I can, and I've accumulated .005+ btc.
Using the address in my sig, will I ever be able to spend my btc assuming I continue with these microtransactions? I'm super poor.
I haven't finished reading the thread, btw, so sorry if I missed something.
Halp?

I saw the few replies regarding this but id like to point something out, The following examples all use bullshit numbers for simplicity and ease of understanding.

Transaction fees are based on the amount of data in the transaction, the more transactions you link to the larger that data set is.
(the data includes where each transaction came from, so lots of tiny amounts sent to you really add up when you spend them.)

(these are not real fees, these are total crap numbers, its just so you get the idea)
Essentially whats happening is that someone is paying you 1 penny, but it will cost you 1$ to send it., in essense, you just threw away 99 pennies to spend that 1 penny.

The difference in value of what your receiving makes all the difference here. Any amount you receive that is the same or below the minimum fee, is going to likely cost you more then you received to send it(example above). There is some wiggle room with how its all calculated but i dont think that is the most important factor for you. For example, lets say you receive 1 penny, it costs 1 penny to send it. as a result you have a net gain of 0$ if you receive 2 pennies and it costs 1 penny to send it then you have a net gain of 1 penny, or 50% of what you received, Not a vary good percentage. Even at 10 pennies  with a cost of 1 penny thats still only nets you 9 out of 10 pennies or 90% of your money. Thats like a 10% fee!

Whats my point? To put it plainly. the closer the amounts that you receive are to the fee you must pay, the less of your money you get to keep. The larger the amounts you receive, the more you get to keep.

Hopefully what im trying to say is easy to understand.


Makes me really wish bitcoinQT had some ability to select which transactions to use and the ability to view the related fees for them on the fly.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I can no l0nger use bitcoin on either a mac or windows. I cant even install the client on windows without errors and my mac is unuseable with bitcoin-qt. Yes you should boycott it, because the coding is fucking  shit.

[Buffer Overflow]

I can no l0nger use bitcoin on either a mac or windows. I cant even install the client on windows without errors and my mac is unuseable with bitcoin-qt. Yes you should boycott it, because the coding is fucking  shit.

Try Linux.

[gweedo]

I can no l0nger use bitcoin on either a mac or windows. I cant even install the client on windows without errors and my mac is unuseable with bitcoin-qt. Yes you should boycott it, because the coding is fucking  shit.

Try Linux.

He shouldn't have to try anything. The core development team, doesn't even code anymore they all do work for other bitcoin companies and have lost focus on what is really important.

[ktttn]

I can no l0nger use bitcoin on either a mac or windows. I cant even install the client on windows without errors and my mac is unuseable with bitcoin-qt. Yes you should boycott it, because the coding is fucking  shit.

Try Linux.

He shouldn't have to try anything. The core development team, doesn't even code anymore they all do work for other bitcoin companies and have lost focus on what is really important.

But... Linux is imo plain old way better than those OS's are. Why should bitcoin bow to inferior operating systems? Popular use is cool, but I'd be happier about 10% of all linux users using btc than 11% of windows users using it. (Note that i have no idea what these numbers actually imply.)

I honestly sense a trace of hipocrisy. How might you go about joining the core dev team to fix these problems?
I'd join, but my coding abilities take a sharp nosedive at myspace-style HTML.
Do you have any active pull requests or an altcoin in the works?
Did you know you're ignore flagged?
*gasp* Am I ignore flagged?!

[gweedo]

I can no l0nger use bitcoin on either a mac or windows. I cant even install the client on windows without errors and my mac is unuseable with bitcoin-qt. Yes you should boycott it, because the coding is fucking  shit.

Try Linux.

He shouldn't have to try anything. The core development team, doesn't even code anymore they all do work for other bitcoin companies and have lost focus on what is really important.

But... Linux is imo plain old way better than those OS's are. Why should bitcoin bow to inferior operating systems? Popular use is cool, but I'd be happier about 10% of all linux users using btc than 11% of windows users using it. (Note that i have no idea what these numbers actually imply.)

Considering Mac is on par with linux I don't care about either one of them. I have even removed bitcoind from my servers, I built my own client using bitcoinj.

[legitnick]

No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.

And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.

[gweedo]

No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.

And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.

I love the brain wash of the core dev team. So how did transactions get slow because of micro-transactions? It never did it was always a free market. Also how does it spam the blockchain? It doesn't, maybe instead of brainwashing people the core dev team should start actually fixing the blockchain, which has been broken, due to the lack of attention it gets. The most important part of bitcoin and it doesn't get any attention kind sad.

[melvster]

No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.

And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.

I love the brain wash of the core dev team. So how did transactions get slow because of micro-transactions? It never did it was always a free market. Also how does it spam the blockchain? It doesn't, maybe instead of brainwashing people the core dev team should start actually fixing the blockchain, which has been broken, due to the lack of attention it gets. The most important part of bitcoin and it doesn't get any attention kind sad.

It spams the uxto which is normally kept in memory.

The core dev team is actually pretty good compared with most open source projects, but is still vulnerable to a 51% consensus attack...

It doesnt matter tho, because losses to bitcoin will be gains to alt currencies. 

It's competition fair and square.

[solex]

No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.

And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.

I love the brain wash of the core dev team. So how did transactions get slow because of micro-transactions? It never did it was always a free market. Also how does it spam the blockchain? It doesn't, maybe instead of brainwashing people the core dev team should start actually fixing the blockchain, which has been broken, due to the lack of attention it gets. The most important part of bitcoin and it doesn't get any attention kind sad.

Micro-transactions spam the blockchain, and it does not matter if you repeat the opposite a thousand times, like a Tibetan mantra, you are still wrong.

[gweedo]

No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.

And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.

I love the brain wash of the core dev team. So how did transactions get slow because of micro-transactions? It never did it was always a free market. Also how does it spam the blockchain? It doesn't, maybe instead of brainwashing people the core dev team should start actually fixing the blockchain, which has been broken, due to the lack of attention it gets. The most important part of bitcoin and it doesn't get any attention kind sad.

It spams the uxto which is normally kept in memory.

The core dev team is actually pretty good compared with most open source projects, but is still vulnerable to a 51% consensus attack...

It doesnt matter tho, because losses to bitcoin will be gains to alt currencies.  

It's competition fair and square.

I am sorry to break it to you but it has never been fair. They have too much power, and sadly no one wants to fork it, so some of us have to deal with it.

No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.

And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.

I love the brain wash of the core dev team. So how did transactions get slow because of micro-transactions? It never did it was always a free market. Also how does it spam the blockchain? It doesn't, maybe instead of brainwashing people the core dev team should start actually fixing the blockchain, which has been broken, due to the lack of attention it gets. The most important part of bitcoin and it doesn't get any attention kind sad.

Micro-transactions spam the blockchain, and it does not matter if you repeat the opposite a thousand times, like a Tibetan mantra, you are still wrong.

And the more you say it doesn't make it right. No one has explained why it is spam? It isn't spam, when I started with bitcoin, micro-transactions were welcomed. And at that point they were worth less than they are worth now. So what changed, the core dev team can't fix the blockchain and don't want to deal with it.

[solex]

And the more you say it doesn't make it right. No one has explained why it is spam? It isn't spam, when I started with bitcoin, micro-transactions were welcomed. And at that point they were worth less than they are worth now. So what changed, the core dev team can't fix the blockchain and don't want to deal with it.

I see that you joined about two weeks after SD started. Now I am not blaming SD, but I think that their business model first highlighted the effect upon the Bitcoin network of many 'legitimate' micro-transactions. Clearly a few are always tolerable, but before SD they were rare, unless they were part of a deliberate spamming attack, and overall volumes small enough that it did not matter. SD has improved a lot with its minimum (0.0005 BTC, I believe). The 0.8.2 changes reduces the risk of other pseudo-legitimate sources of high-volume micro-transactions emerging.

There are possible optimizations for blockchain handling, such as the one maaku is working on, but it is still some time off yet.

[gweedo]

And the more you say it doesn't make it right. No one has explained why it is spam? It isn't spam, when I started with bitcoin, micro-transactions were welcomed. And at that point they were worth less than they are worth now. So what changed, the core dev team can't fix the blockchain and don't want to deal with it.

I see that you joined about two weeks after SD started. Now I am not blaming SD, but I think that their business model first highlighted the effect upon the Bitcoin network of many 'legitimate' micro-transactions. Clearly a few are always tolerable, but before SD they were rare, unless they were part of a deliberate spamming attack, and overall volumes small enough that it did not matter. SD has improved a lot with its minimum (0.0005 BTC, I believe). The 0.8.2 changes reduces the risk of other pseudo-legitimate sources of high-volume micro-transactions emerging.

There are possible optimizations for blockchain handling, such as the one maaku is working on, but it is still some time off yet.

I was actually around before SD, was. But that isn't an excuse. SD created a business model, that was successful, Erik didn't do anything he wasn't suppose and even paid the fees, making that excuse a very bad one. That is the free market if it was harmful to the end user, why not stop using SD all together. But instead of doing that, the core devs took it upon them to say, that is not how we want bitcoin to be use, and they changed it. Shame on them, that is horrible and they talk about how bad money is. Look at bitspend chase shut them down, basically the core dev team did the same thing to SD. Horrible, inexcusable abuse of their power, and not an excuse as to why micro-transactions should be stopped.

[Eri]

And the more you say it doesn't make it right. No one has explained why it is spam? It isn't spam, when I started with bitcoin, micro-transactions were welcomed. And at that point they were worth less than they are worth now. So what changed, the core dev team can't fix the blockchain and don't want to deal with it.

I see that you joined about two weeks after SD started. Now I am not blaming SD, but I think that their business model first highlighted the effect upon the Bitcoin network of many 'legitimate' micro-transactions. Clearly a few are always tolerable, but before SD they were rare, unless they were part of a deliberate spamming attack, and overall volumes small enough that it did not matter. SD has improved a lot with its minimum (0.0005 BTC, I believe). The 0.8.2 changes reduces the risk of other pseudo-legitimate sources of high-volume micro-transactions emerging.

There are possible optimizations for blockchain handling, such as the one maaku is working on, but it is still some time off yet.

I was actually around before SD, was. But that isn't an excuse. SD created a business model, that was successful, Erik didn't do anything he wasn't suppose and even paid the fees, making that excuse a very bad one. That is the free market if it was harmful to the end user, why not stop using SD all together. But instead of doing that, the core devs took it upon them to say, that is not how we want bitcoin to be use, and they changed it. Shame on them, that is horrible and they talk about how bad money is. Look at bitspend chase shut them down, basically the core dev team did the same thing to SD. Horrible, inexcusable abuse of their power, and not an excuse as to why micro-transactions should be stopped.

For the sake of anyone reading this. This person is trying to get people to not use the new client because they think its censorship, when nobody agrees with them. Its why they have ignore lit up.


The quick break down.

-What does this patch do?

It tries to stop you from being able to send people amounts that are so small, that it costs the person receiving it more money to spend then what you sent them. To say it again, It costs them more money then you sent them. As a result it doesnt get spent and bloats the blockchain with data that *cant* be pruned because people *wont* spend it, because it costs them more money then you sent them, so why would they?

While pruning has not been implemented yet it will be, at some point.


On the page that has the client download and on the git pull, it says and has said exactly why its being implemented. After reading that, anyone that had enough of a understanding of bitcoin fully understood why its essential that it be implemented.

I honestly hope you understand why this is important.

[Eri]

I can no l0nger use bitcoin on either a mac or windows. I cant even install the client on windows without errors and my mac is unuseable with bitcoin-qt. Yes you should boycott it, because the coding is fucking  shit.

Your semi right in the sense it does use allot of your CPU to check that new blocks it receives are valid, Why that is.. im not entirely sure. could a GPU in this case speed this up and take some of the load off of the CPU? I dont know.

If your having issues installing the client then i dont think its the clients fault.

If on the other hand you mean you cant install it because of the errors you get while its checking the blockchain, or that it stops checking it. I think that means your cpu is giving invalid information back to the program when it verifies the block. If the cpu messes up and the data ends up damaged and shows its incorrect, the client seems to stop dead in its tracks since there is no point trying to further verify a 'invalid' block. To that end.. maybe it should check a failed block twice You should look into it and maybe bug the devs if this is the case.(you can simply restart the client to get it to try that block again)

Anyone else know if this is accurate?

[Elanthius]

It tries to stop you from being able to send people amounts that are so small, that it costs the person receiving it more money to spend then what you sent them. To say it again, It costs them more money then you sent them.

Except it doesn't and you can easily send transactions that use 1 satoshi as the fee (per thousand bytes) using the standard bitcoin-qt client. It may take a day or two to confirm but they always go through eventually. Maybe in some future world you'll be right but as for now you are not.

[melvster]

It tries to stop you from being able to send people amounts that are so small, that it costs the person receiving it more money to spend then what you sent them. To say it again, It costs them more money then you sent them.

Except it doesn't and you can easily send transactions that use 1 satoshi as the fee (per thousand bytes) using the standard bitcoin-qt client. It may take a day or two to confirm but they always go through eventually. Maybe in some future world you'll be right but as for now you are not.

You cant send a tx where the output is less than the new limit.

The new limit are based on developer estimates of cost.

But they have unintended consequences, for example, if you had made a business in colored coins, this change may hit you hard.