Boycott 0.8.2

[Daily Anarchist]

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.

[1714814909]

1714814909

[1714814909]

1714814909

[1714814909]

1714814909

[1714814909]

1714814909

[farlack]

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]

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

[phantastisch]

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

Yes.

[Daily Anarchist]

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.

[Fiyasko]

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

[gweedo]

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!

[bitcoiners]

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]

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.

[Daily Anarchist]

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.

[bitcoiners]

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]

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]

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]

they are being payed to fuck up the chain and bitcoin

[skang]

*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.

[jdillon]

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]

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.

[jdillon]

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]

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.

[gmaxwell]

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

Thats not correct. This isn't a protocol rule. As miners shift down the fee value they consider to be 0 for priority purposes it shifts this threshold down too.

Instead of being here, maybe actually try and figure out the blockchain size problem correctly, without censorship.

The word censorship loses meaning if you erroneously apply it to everything you don't like.

People can create txoutputs which cost more in fees to spend than they provide in bitcoins. This results in an increase in the perpetual unprunable data and the working set size of full nodes, and people use these outputs to also force all bitcoin users to carry around non-bitcoin data.  Making the default behavior to not mine the creation of new outputs that can't be economically spent directly addresses the issue of outputs which are uneconomical to spend.

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

People are demanding that the fees be _decreased_ while the non-bitcoin junk data storage is _increasing_ under the current fees.  This is the same general mechanism and it's also adjustable.

What the change does is makes it so that you can't pay a single 0.0001 fee and create a ton of 0.00000001 outputs.  The base fee was 0.0005btc/KB in 0.8.1 and 0.8.2 _lowers_ the base fee to 0.0001BTC/kb but refuses to mine transactions which create outputs which are so small that they'd be uneconomical to spend considering the miner's configured minimum-fee-to-not-treat-as-zero.

NO transactions should be blocked, and currently no transaction have been blocked, miners have chose not to include them, but some miners will pick those up. THis is blocking transactions making them not able to be included or CENSORSHIP.

So please research again and then say something smart.

Uh. You are so thoroughly confused I don't know where to start.

(1) The change doesn't block anything.  Your "CENSORSHIP" here is crying wolf. It changes the default mining behavior to not include some transactions which are very likely to be abusive non-financial transactions, but it's just a default and its adjustable. It doesn't make them not able to be included. You've been told this multiple times. You've acknowledged that you understand that it's a configurable default, so are you intentionally telling lies now?

(2) There are VERY many transaction kinds which are inhibited in exactly the same way— in fact, unlike this most of them can't be permitted without modifying the source code. (Search for 'bitcoin standard transactions')