Boycott 0.8.2

[justusranvier]

I'm not trying to pump altcoins,

My comment was not intended for the people who are behaving reasonably.

People who are spreading FUD while using a profile pic that promotes Litecoins do make me wonder on the other hand.

[Nancarrow]

Nancarrow, Justusranvier, Itchthyo,

Just to clarify, I wasn't ranting, nor was I taking the opposite position to anybody. I just asked a few questions.

I think asking questions while being a newbie is better than being ignorant.

No worries, I wasn't accusing you of ranting, I was just taking issue with your plea for the developers to be 'non-controversial', as the developers aren't responsible for the existence of shrieking imbeciles (I do not accuse you of being one).

And asking questions is definitely better than being ignorant. But even better than asking questions is reading first. See the addendum to this post for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196138.msg2040160#msg2040160

[oakpacific]

I think the facts that people have overlooked is that this change is 100% optional and there is no need for a fork if you don't want it. If (for example) Blockchain.info and one of the major mining pools were convinced to not accept this change, then the change would be irrelevant to you, and only people using the Bitcoin-qt client would be affected.

This talk about Gavin being or acting like a dictator is nonsense. Gavin and team write bitcoin software. They don't dictate anything. Anybody can write bitcoin software. If you don't like the software that they write, then you can come up with better software and convince all the sheeple to use it.

I'm concerned that this outcry demonstrates that even people in the Bitcoin community really want a centralized currency, and that is bad news for Bitcoin.

Especially given that this is something which only takes a few lines of change to be undone, the kind of whining around here probably says a lot more about the whiners rather than the developers, that they may not really care about the well-being of the network but want to spread FUDs instead.

[optimator]

Especially given that this is something which only takes a few lines of change to be undone, the kind of whining around here probably says a lot more about the whiners rather than the developers, that they may not really care about the well-being of the network but want to spread FUDs instead.

I dont know... It's been interesting to watch this unfold. I think it says more about the new reality of a reddit sub with 40,000 members and how the development team communicates changes to the community.

The reality is a base level of understanding is required to comprehend the changes being made, and without that base level it's very easy to jump to incorrect conclusions.

[oakpacific]

Especially given that this is something which only takes a few lines of change to be undone, the kind of whining around here probably says a lot more about the whiners rather than the developers, that they may not really care about the well-being of the network but want to spread FUDs instead.

I dont know... It's been interesting to watch this unfold. I think it says more about the new reality of a reddit sub with 40,000 members and how the development team communicates changes to the community.

The reality is a base level of understanding is required to comprehend the changes being made, and without that base level it's very easy to jump to incorrect conclusions.

You need to manage to understand everything about something if you want you use it in the perfectly trustless way, or you will need to trust someone to do that for you, like the dev team.

If the developers have to spend a lot of their time convincing people about their decisions, then they essentially become politicians. Miners must make decisions for themselves, rather than listening to developers.

[sturle]

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.

Another one that didn't read, did you read that it will be on by default for mines, that you have to change to off instead of one. Did you also read this is a form of censorship.

Which is good, because it makes it a bit more difficult to be an evil miner.  No, this has nothing to do with censorship.  It is pure common sense.

Which version are you on, btw?  You know outputs of 0.00000000 were "censored" (i.e. made non-standard) around version 0.6 or so, right?  Those are still allowed, just not considered a standard bitcoin transaction any more.  Those are just as useless as outputs of 0.000005 BTC, and waste just as much space in the blockchain, but better because they can be pruned and don't waste resources in the UTXO set.

And I could care less if you thought I was a programmer or not LOL

It says "programmer for hire" under your name.  Perhaps you rent out your daddy or something?

[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.

Ripple?

Hm... I would rather see this implemented using a payment infrastructure that is truly open source, and where the units of transmission are not 100% owned by the developers. Ripple has its own problems that are even more offensive to me than this (hopefully temporary) inconvenience in btc. That said, I would be happy to see the value of my ripple holdings grow exponentially when people start using the network to issue MMORPG gold, or cell phone minutes, or some other private currency using the ripple network. Whoever makes that happen will create a frickin trillion dollar ecosystem.

[sturle]

I will definitely not update. Even if some agree this was correct, basing it in the price of USD... 54ubtc will be 1 cent of a dollar when its value is aprox 184 USD, so what's the point to have a digital cryptocurrency that can't allow even that? And you know changing it deppending on USD price is totally wrong

By not upgrading, you wil not get the benefit of lower txfee either.  The txfee in 0.8.1 is much higher than your 54µBTC.  If you want to go back to the versions where even smaller transactions were considered standard, your txfee will be five times higher than in 0.8.1.

[sturle]

Why not just make a fork? I think it's just one or two lines of code, so should be easily done.

One line in bitcoin.conf is enough.  You will need quite a bit of RAM to handle all the spam in mempool, since it will take a long time to confirm.

[gmaxwell]

but better because they can be pruned and don't waste resources in the UTXO sent.

I wish. 0-value outputs can't be pruned because they can still be spent. I _think_ I'd like us to some day make 0-value txouts impossible to spend (e.g. via a softfork), and then they could be pruned... but it's not clear if perhaps there wouldn't be good uses for them, and there is no rush now because since they're non-standard their use isn't large or increasing.  Getting rid of them has "theoretical attractiveness" because so long as there are no zero value outputs the maximum size of the utxo set is bounded and known. (And before someone gets spun up, I don't think the same about low but not zero value txouts, for all the obvious reasons)

It was easier to make 0 value txouts non-standard because there was no uncertainty about future Bitcoin values or such— it's obvious that a zero value output can't yield more Bitcoin than it costs to spend, since it yields none at all. Without the uncertainty you don't need to wonder about how you'll adjust things over time or what the right initial threshold is, etc.

[sturle]

I'll update to 0.8.2 !

I've upgraded my miners to the current git already.  No more unspendable spam or DoS outputs relayed or stored into the blockchain by me!  (I mine solo.)

[gweedo]

I'll update to 0.8.2 !

I've upgraded my miners to the current git already.  No more unspendable spam or DoS outputs relayed or stored into the blockchain by me!  (I mine solo.)

So who has actually been DoS by outputs I never seen anyone say anything about that. But good your solo mining does nothing so your not any threat

[sturle]

I'll update to 0.8.2 !

I've upgraded my miners to the current git already.  No more unspendable spam or DoS outputs relayed or stored into the blockchain by me!  (I mine solo.)

So who has actually been DoS by outputs I never seen anyone say anything about that. But good your solo mining does nothing so your not any threat

You have absolutely no clue whatsoever.  And since you obviously don't bother to read anything which doesn't line up 100% to your religious fantasies about how Bitcoin works, I don't expect you will ever get one.  Do you even run a Bitcoin node?  Noticed it takes quite a bit of disk space and it's memory footprint seems to be increasing by the day?  Not a DoS in progress, you say?  I can't even run a full node on the computer I'm typing on now any more.  It has mined quite a few blocks in the past.

My miners are high on the seed list.  Just stopping any dust transactions right there and not passing them on to other nodes will make them more difficult to get through.  And I still find a block now and then.  Mining solo makes more BTC in the long run than mining in a pool, and I get them in nice, large non-dust chunks. :-)

[gweedo]

I'll update to 0.8.2 !

I've upgraded my miners to the current git already.  No more unspendable spam or DoS outputs relayed or stored into the blockchain by me!  (I mine solo.)

So who has actually been DoS by outputs I never seen anyone say anything about that. But good your solo mining does nothing so your not any threat

You have absolutely no clue whatsoever.  And since you obviously don't bother to read anything which doesn't line up 100% to your religious fantasies about how Bitcoin works, I don't expect you will ever get one.  Do you even run a Bitcoin node?  Noticed it takes quite a bit of disk space and it's memory footprint seems to be increasing by the day?  Not a DoS in progress, you say?

Since I run 3 nodes, and a testnet node. currently I don't even notice the node running on my laptop (couple years old macbook pro) which I am using now. So maybe update your computer, or if your running a netbook obviously your not going to run a node on their.

[bitcork]

i am a simpleton and a newbie but after i read this reddit, i feel better:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1drocs/to_everyone_wringing_their_hands_over_the_recent/

disclosure: i am not a programmer

[meebs]

my idea: create a 8.0.1Z version or something that is IDENTICAL to the current one with the only different being the version number, this way it helps to quantify the support, or lack of the movement to keep microtransactions going on.

(not stating my opinion towards the issue, this is just an idea, instead of just flat out ignoring the new version)

[rme]

HEY!
People have to download 0.8.2 and change the default config.
There is not a "patch", you can change the 5400 satoshi to any value.

Stop bitching, just change the default config

[centove]

So... Let me get this straight... Everyone is all wound up because the fee's have changed...

--- bitcoin 8.1 (main.h around line 45)
static const int64 MIN_TX_FEE = 50000;
/** Fees smaller than this (in satoshi) are considered zero fee (for relaying) */
static const int64 MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE = 10000;
----

--- bitcoin (git just cloned, main.cpp around line 57)
int64 CTransaction::nMinTxFee = 10000;  // Override with -mintxfee
/** Fees smaller than this (in satoshi) are considered zero fee (for relaying) */
int64 CTransaction::nMinRelayTxFee = 10000;
----

Umm... WTF?

I suppose gavin screwed up and should have written instead:

int64 CTransaction::nMinTxFee = 50000;  // Override with -mintxfee


Then everyone would be happy...

[crazy_rabbit]

Storm in a teapot.

[gweedo]

So... Let me get this straight... Everyone is all wound up because the fee's have changed...

If you actually read you understand but you are clueless, so I take pitty on you.