Boycott 0.8.2

[Zeke_Vermillion]

The real problem with blocking "dust" transactions is that it makes it more difficult to develop colored coin infrastructure using bitcoin. And to me, that is the most powerful application of decentralized payment networks. Imposing a barrier to developing that killer app on btc means that it will be developed first, or at least much more fluently, on another network or alt chain. I don't really think it's necessary to boycott btc client upgrades though. The market will sort out whether this is the killer app that I predict, or whether bitcoin is best used as a store of value as opposed to a payment network.

[1714045096]

1714045096

[1714045096]

1714045096

[1714045096]

1714045096

[1714045096]

1714045096

[1714045096]

1714045096

[1714045096]

1714045096

[bitcoiners]

So effin what.  I'm still free to do it.

And you still are, its no problem to remove the patch, but the actual purpose of the patch is to make SatoshiDice stop filling the blockchain with dust (I'm going to come right out and say it).

I don't give a shit.  This is regulation of bitcoin.  End of story. 

No one should be told how much they can or can't spend.  This is against everything I've understood of Bitcoin.

[gmaxwell]

So effin what.  I'm still free to do it.  Someone should not tell me how much I can or can't spend.  "Let's protect the stupid." Sorry that is the system we are already living in.  This is why I've moved to bitcoin/litecoin.  If bitcoin protocol adopts this then it becomes the very thing it's said it's against and is meaningless.

And you're still free to do that, just add the 5000x more (1/10th what you otherwise needed as fee) to the actual output value. Not only does it cost less marginally than litecoin's multiply the fee by the number of dust outputs, but the recipient isn't saddled with a bunch of inputs that cost them more to spend then they yield in coin.

The real problem with blocking "dust" transactions is that it makes it more difficult to develop colored coin infrastructure using bitcoin.

No it doesn't— just use larger (but still 'subcent') colored coins... at least then when someone loses interest in some color (or the color becomes worthless) there is some economic incentive to go remove them from perpetual fast storage by sweeping them up.

I don't give a shit.  This is regulation of bitcoin.  End of story.  
No one should be told how much they can or can't spend.  This is against everything I've understood of Bitcoin.

Uh. Bitcoin has _always_ had restrictions, without any restrictions it wouldn't be worthwhile— it would be over the first time some anti-social jackass types   "while true; do bitcoind sendtoaddress `bitcoind getnewaddress` 0.0000001 ; done".  No one should be forced to carry around megabytes of random people's non-finanicial data storage just because they want to be a Bitcoin node, no one should receive payments that cost more to redeem than they are worth,  Bitcoin wouldn't be practically decentralized today if some evil visa-operative could run my above shell script and have made the blockchain 200gbytes in size, etc.  The opposite of control isn't no control.

[SomeWhere]

This is bullshit.

If you do this, you kill any credibility Bitcoin has.

It's not Gavin's place to DICTATE what transactions should be allowed and what transactions should not be allowed.

The beautiful mathematical design of Bitcoin just makes sense. This does NOT make sense in the same theoretical, effortless way. This is arbitrary.

Gavin, if you can't come up with an actual decent, good system for transaction fees that makes sense and solves this problems as a mere CONSEQUENCE, instead of enforcing it in a ridiculous, absolutely not thoughtful way, then you don't deserve to be the main developer behind Bitcoin and you should GET THE FUCK OUT of the way.

I'm so unbelievably angry right now that the main person responsible for the progress of the Bitcoin software is even considering this. If there ever was a time where we needed Satoshi, this is it.

Mark my words, if you implement this, it's the beginning of the end, the end of something beautiful. You do NOT have the right to make such a decision!

[bbulker]

What the heck is the point in having 8 digits if you can't use them?

You can't use them right now. Try spending a 1satoshi input, you'll need to pay a 0.0005BTC tx fee to send it.

So what if you have to pay 0.0005? At least you can still do it.

[Blazr]

I don't give a shit.  This is regulation of bitcoin.  End of story. 

No one should be told how much they can or can't spend.  This is against everything I've understood of Bitcoin.

Maybe you are miss understanding, here is how it works right now:

I have 1BTC. I send you 1 satoshi. I now have 0.99999999BTC

You receive 0BTC, because the 1 satoshi is unspendable because there is a 0.0005BTC fee to spend it.

The Blockchain grows in size, using up more space on every Bitcoin user's PC & network resources are wasted.

Now please tell me why we shouldn't have this patch?

[wachtwoord]

Please everyone read carefully what gmaxwell has to say. He knows a lot more about the inner workings of Bitcoin than any of you (including me). (I'm not saying to blindly follow him, but please take a few minutes to comprehend what he tries to explain to you).

[Stringer Bell]

Huh? this has little to nothing to do with SD. AFAIR they no longer create very small outputs.

You, sir, have the patience of a saint.

I'll say!

Thanks for the quality explanations gmaxwell  

[Blazr]

Censorship.

It's not censorship, if you ask me, its like the other person not getting the BTC at all because they can't spend it. Why should we have transactions where the sender looses BTC and the receiver gets nothing?

[wachtwoord]

Censorship.

It's not censorship, if you ask me, its like the other person not getting the BTC at all because they can't spend it. Why should we have transactions where the sender looses BTC and the receiver gets nothing?

I shouldn't be told how to spend my bitcoins, if I want to make them non-spendable that is what I want. It is censorship, plus they are doing it cause they have a vendetta against Satoshi Dice.

Huh? this has little to nothing to do with SD. AFAIR they no longer create very small outputs.

[Blazr]

I shouldn't be told how to spend my bitcoins, if I want to make them non-spendable that is what I want.

Delete the private key if you want to make your BTC unspendable, don't bloat the blockchain with it.

It is censorship

Its fairly simple to remove the patch if you like, I'm not sure but I think nodes will still broadcast the tx, right?

plus they are doing it cause they have a vendetta against Satoshi Dice.

They should, SDice abuses the system, Bitcoin resources aren't unlimited, we have to share the resources between us. SDice should play nice and use the Bitcoin network resources efficiently and not waste them.

[gmaxwell]

Yes cause they censored them, either conform to our standards or don't do business anymore.

You sure like that word. I thought I did too ... too bad you're well on your way to destroying its meaning.

What the heck are you talking about? How was anyone censored? Or are you just happily making up stuff?

[CasinoBit]

It just shows that while Bitcoin is working using irrefutable mathematics it is still under the personal whim of gullible people thus rendering it unstable, perhaps even more unstable because the whole thing is managed by financially unstable individuals who would sell their soul happily to wreck everything we have worked so hard for.

Kind of reminds me of how totalitarian governments acquires control, first scare the masses with the threat of terrorism (S.Dice) then ask them to surrender their rights for the government (Gavin) to protect them, then continue spewing propaganda claiming anyone to resist is a traitor.

Ideally, you would have a "tree" system where Bitcoin separates into two different builds, perhaps liberal/conservative style (even though both are identical in this case) and users would be able to "vote" to choose which build they want to download and use.

[deepceleron]

Yes cause they censored them, either conform to our standards or don't do business anymore.

You sure like that word. I thought I did too ... too bad you're well on your way to destroying its meaning.

What the heck are you talking about? How was anyone censored? Or are you just happily making up stuff?

The only thing censored is by me hitting the ignore button on the OP and anybody else posting stupid stuff here. Plonk!

[Zeke_Vermillion]

The real problem with blocking "dust" transactions is that it makes it more difficult to develop colored coin infrastructure using bitcoin. And to me, that is the most powerful application of decentralized payment networks. Imposing a barrier to developing that killer app on btc means that it will be developed first, or at least much more fluently, on another network or alt chain. I don't really think it's necessary to boycott btc client upgrades though. The market will sort out whether this is the killer app that I predict, or whether bitcoin is best used as a store of value as opposed to a payment network.

I just read https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit.  Why can't you just use small transactions instead of dust below the threashold?

You can, but it's inelegant. The beauty of using the blockchain to trade non-btc assets is that theoretically you could use one bitcoin and create an entire private currency out of its individual satoshis. This would make bitcoin as a whole more valuable. If you say that you can only use increments of 10,000 satoshis to represent a single asset, then you're not using the entire potential of btc to communicate information. You are creating an artificial cap on the value of btc, as well as imposing an unnecessary cost on asset issuers.

[bg002h]

If you want to spend hours and hours curating large sets of addresses containing trivial sums of cash, you're crazy. In fact, it will cost you a bundle to do so, patch or no patch. The dust issue is supposed to be eliminated by transaction fees...but, transaction fees (which IMHO are too high, but that's up to the miners) aren't high enough to make it truly expensive to stuff the block chain with large amounts of tiny transactions (bear in mind that transactions can also carry arbitrary text too).

Thus, any jerk with $100 can insert text into the block chain that is illegal is some jurisdictions. I mean, I don't live in a country where the government might kill me because I have a file on my computer that say "to hell with {insert religious figure}," but there probably are Bitcoin users who do.

The only people really affected by this patch are those using the blockchain for non-economic purposes (like Satoshi Dice saying, sorry, you lost...that's just transmitting information, nothing of current or relative value exchanges hands).

I think a wiser approach (which is being debated by the devs) would be something like tying the dust definition to the size of a transaction fee. Also, they can undo this change in the future, so keep your worthless SD transactions safe...someday you might be able to spend them in an economic manner.

[freedomno1]

Well I pay 0.001 mbtc dont want fee inflation lol

[bg002h]

The real problem with blocking "dust" transactions is that it makes it more difficult to develop colored coin infrastructure using bitcoin. And to me, that is the most powerful application of decentralized payment networks. Imposing a barrier to developing that killer app on btc means that it will be developed first, or at least much more fluently, on another network or alt chain. I don't really think it's necessary to boycott btc client upgrades though. The market will sort out whether this is the killer app that I predict, or whether bitcoin is best used as a store of value as opposed to a payment network.

Ripple?

[jgarzik]

NO transactions should be blocked,

Then spam clogs the network.

and currently no transaction have been blocked,

False.  Anti-spam relay rules have been blocking transactions since the first days of bitcoin.

In the past, you might get dropped for sending 0.01 BTC, instead of the much-low levels of today.

[sturle]

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

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.

Actaully you should be doing the reading, because your claim is completely wrong.

Miners choose what transactions to include or not include.  Many choose not to include e.g. S.D stransactions or very small transactions.  This change makes it default to not include transactions which the receiver can't spend without paying more in fees than the transaction is worth, but an evil miner can easily change this and include the transaction if he wants to contribute to a denial of service against bitcoin users.  It is a soft rule, not a hard rule.

I don't believe for a second that you are an actual programmer, btw.