Boycott 0.8.2

[centove]

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.

I did, I read the code the only real change in the behavior is it's checking a run time variable vs a constant.. and said run time variable is different then the constant, if one wants the old behavior pass old value to new run time variable. Or if really concerned write a patch that changes that magic number back to the old magic number and put in a pull request.

[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.

I did, I read the code the only real change in the behavior is it's checking a run time variable vs a constant.. and said run time variable is different then the constant, if one wants the old behavior pass old value to new run time variable. Or if really concerned write a patch that changes that magic number back to the old magic number and put in a pull request.

It is so much more than... so please read this thread and you will see where the problem lies.

[evilpete]

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.

I did, I read the code the only real change in the behavior is it's checking a run time variable vs a constant.. and said run time variable is different then the constant, if one wants the old behavior pass old value to new run time variable. Or if really concerned write a patch that changes that magic number back to the old magic number and put in a pull request.

It also calculates the threshold where a transaction can't be spent without costing so much in fees that it's not worth spending. This is derived at runtime from the values you quoted.

And if such a "dust" transaction comes through the p2p network, it ignores it.  If a miner mines it, then so be it, but the node itself won't contribute to propagation of the dust spam.

Miners can set this threshold at runtime easily instead of having it compiled in.

[centove]

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

judgemet

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

I did, I read the code the only real change in the behavior is it's checking a run time variable vs a constant.. and said run time variable is different then the constant, if one wants the old behavior pass old value to new run time variable. Or if really concerned write a patch that changes that magic number back to the old magic number and put in a pull request.

It is so much more than... so please read this thread and you will see where the problem lies.

You keep calling it censorship, and trying to control how you spend your btc... Well lets flip that around, as a miner you are telling me that I have to include every one of your transactions no matter what. And I should spend my resources confirming your transactions just because that's what you want. However if I choose to only include transactions that have a fee attached I'm censoring you? You (and anyone else) are free to broadcast as many transactions as you want, of whatever size you want, however you are not free to tell me which ones I have to process or the order in which I have to process them. So as a miner if I decide that from this point on any transaction I include in any block I process will have a 0.001 fee or I will not work it how am I censoring you? Sure I'll include your 0.00000001 transaction but it will cost you 0.001 for me to do so, why? Cause that's my cost to run this node, you don't like it? Run your own node or someone else can pick it up for less and once it's in a block everyone will carry it.

I also read where this is the first step in automating the minimum tx fee. At this point, seeing as this is not done, we can only speculate on how this will be implemented. I for one hope that whatever I pass as a command line argument or set in a config file will override the automated method. But I will reserve judgement on that.

[gweedo]

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

judgemet

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

I did, I read the code the only real change in the behavior is it's checking a run time variable vs a constant.. and said run time variable is different then the constant, if one wants the old behavior pass old value to new run time variable. Or if really concerned write a patch that changes that magic number back to the old magic number and put in a pull request.

It is so much more than... so please read this thread and you will see where the problem lies.

You keep calling it censorship, and trying to control how you spend your btc... Well lets flip that around, as a miner you are telling me that I have to include every one of your transactions no matter what. And I should spend my resources confirming your transactions just because that's what you want. However if I choose to only include transactions that have a fee attached I'm censoring you? You (and anyone else) are free to broadcast as many transactions as you want, of whatever size you want, however you are not free to tell me which ones I have to process or the order in which I have to process them. So as a miner if I decide that from this point on any transaction I include in any block I process will have a 0.001 fee or I will not work it how am I censoring you? Sure I'll include your 0.00000001 transaction but it will cost you 0.001 for me to do so, why? Cause that's my cost to run this node, you don't like it? Run your own node or someone else can pick it up for less and once it's in a block everyone will carry it.

I also read where this is the first step in automating the minimum tx fee. At this point, seeing as this is not done, we can only speculate on how this will be implemented. I for one hope that whatever I pass as a command line argument or set in a config file will override the automated method. But I will reserve judgement on that.

I explained this a hundred times and it is just going in a circle, you can get find my answer here or in another one of these threads.

[Lethn]

I'm no religious person by any means, but thank god for open source, no matter how this turns out there will now always be alternatives.

[pekv2]

I'm no religious person by any means, but thank god for open source, no matter how this turns out there will now always be alternatives.

Lets hope so. Point is, the decision will be made to do this even though it is wrong to do in the first place.

[The 4ner]

If we refuse to upgrade will we be treated differently when it comes to making transactions with small amounts? Will we even be included in the blockchain?

[Mysticsam_3579]

Hi you can not transfer less than 0.001 bitcoin to be able to get in to the queue to get in to a block. So it is impossible already.
If am wrong please explain how i can transfer 0.00005395 from one of my wallet to an other ?
As it is now no one is willing to relay that transaction through the network.

[evilpete]

If we refuse to upgrade will we be treated differently when it comes to making transactions with small amounts? Will we even be included in the blockchain?

If all your peers are running with the settings at 0.0001, then this happens as they drop it:
2013-05-06 20:29:16 ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : nonstandard transaction type
Your client will keep retrying and eventually it might find a peer that will relay it, and with luck it'll reach a miner that will mine it.

Of course, since 0.8.2 changes it from a hard coded, compiled in setting to a user-setting then who knows?  It can be lowered and 0.8.2 gives people the choice.  Heck, people can even increase the minimums on their p2p node if they wish.

[sturle]

If we refuse to upgrade will we be treated differently when it comes to making transactions with small amounts? Will we even be included in the blockchain?

A large enough fee can buy almost any valid transaction a place in the blockchain.  Why anyone would want to spend a high fee to insert an unspendable amount into the blockchain is unknown to me, but you are free to do it.  You can even send 0 BTC if you want to, but expect to pay a decent fee to get it mined.

When I started using Bitcoin, and Satoshi was still active, it was impossible to send less than 0.01 BTC using the standard client.  Looks like it was a big mistake to make it too liberal in later versions.  When the default client settings move back slightly towards what they used to be, due to the irresponsible spam of unspendable transactions, people who don't have a clue about how Bitcoin works start screaming and whining about censorship and whatnot.

[Ghostofkobra]

There has always been a limit and that 0.00000001BTC.. So why not increase the limit while the prices go up? Those under one cent transactions only fill up the blockchain

Your reasoning is backwards, if the price goes up the limit should be decreased to keep the balance, not the other way around.

Just saying.

[bg002h]

When I started using Bitcoin, and Satoshi was still active, it was impossible to send less than 0.01 BTC using the standard client.  Looks like it was a big mistake to make it too liberal in later versions.  When the default client settings move back slightly towards what they used to be, due to the irresponsible spam of unspendable transactions, people who don't have a clue about how Bitcoin works start screaming and whining about censorship and whatnot.

Indeed. What would be the reason to send 0.00005430 or less bitcoins to someone? Can something be bought for that little bitcoins? I ain't
gonna move my finger for that little or even 10 times more.

What is the reason not to send less that bitcoins to someone? Does it matter if things can be brought or not? Bitcoin is a transfer of wealth and also a contract system. Bitcoin is about free speech. Remember this is because the core development team can't fix a problem so their lack of knowledge is our loss of things we can do with bitcoin.

for the moment...don't forget, we still are boot strapping.  The purpose is to limit block chain size growth while the network infrastructure matures. 

[worldinacoin]

Don't have to boycott, for those who don't want it, just don't install.  Or better still fork your own coin.

[grue]

Don't have to boycott, for those who don't want it, just don't install.  Or better still fork your own coin.

that's the definition of boycott

[justusranvier]

If you don't like the default value that ships with 0.8.2 all you have to do is add a line to your bitcoin.conf file with a different threshold. You can even set it to zero if you want. That's much better than previous versions because with them you had to patch the source code and recompile to change these values.

Problem solved - there is absolutely no legitimate reason to keep whining about this.

[justusranvier]

It isn't that simple, cause with at least one miner on board, we can't do anything.

Any miner you can convince to boycott 0.8.2 is a miner you can also convince to change a line in their bitcoin.conf file.

There's still no excuse for all the whining and drama.

[Kluge]

I declare a counter-boycott, with a .0005BTC value threshold for relays! Push the dusty bastards to LTC!

[justusranvier]

I forgot, that this is a dictatorship I will keep my opinions oppressed down in my mind sorry. I will get back in line now. LMAO

This isn't whining or drama, this is a view I have and others have. Also it is very difficult to convince a miner, since all mining pools don't care, they about profit and don't care about getting in the middle of an idea war.

No dictatorship - anyone is free to whine and I am free to point out their whining as pointless, unjustified and unproductive.

If you're opposed to the default policy in 0.8.2 there two relevant possibilities that affect which courses of action will achieve a result you desire: either it's possible to persuade miners to follow you (actual miners, not hashing subcontractors), or it's not possible to persuade them.

If it's not possible to persuade them then talking about a boycott is pointless because they won't listen to you.

If it is possible to persuade them then the best course of action is to convince them to upgrade to 0.8.2 and set their -mintxfee and -mintxrelayfee to values you consider to be better than the defaults.

[CasinoBit]

I just have one question, why is everyone so angry that I think that we should be able to send any amount? It kinda makes bitcoin community bad when I voice an opinion and I get hateful responses. That is the saddest part of this, cause I have donated and done so much for the community and I get treated like this over an opinion. Guys grow up, it is an opinion don't worry, Gavin won't change it. LOL

If one day I will get big I pledge to pursue the vision of what Bitcoin ought to look like, meeting up with the CIA will certainly not be on my schedule.