Boycott 0.8.2

[owsleybeatsbigcartel]

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!

Gavin =Satoshi?

[kjj]

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

It isn't that simple, cause with at least one miner on board, we can't do anything. Also why would we fork our own coin, there is enough wasted alt coins that just change one thing, that would just push people away from the cause.

If you can't convince even one single solitary miner to join your cause, shouldn't you begin to consider that maybe the problem is you?

[justusranvier]

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.

I agree with you that it's better if we can send any amount. What I'm suggesting is that everybody who wants this should pursue a strategy for achieving it that actually has a chance of working.

[BitcoinAshley]

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.

I agree with you that it's better if we can send any amount. What I'm suggesting is that everybody who wants this should pursue a strategy for achieving it that actually has a chance of working.

.. Shhhhhhhh, no, let them carry on blindly pursuing the one strategy that has the lowest mathematical chance of possibly allowing them to send transactions smaller than a "Gavin" in size 
 
Obviously they need miners for this.
As you've pointed out:
1) REALLY HARD SOLUTION: Convince some miners to boycott 0.8.2 ALTOGETHER

2) MUCH EASIER SOLUTION, just as effective: Convince some miners to simply edit their .conf files.

That we have 8 pages of discussion on this is just hilarious. Either way you have to get some miners on your side, and it would obviously be much easier to convince one to edit the .conf file than to boycott the new version altogether.

I love how on the first page, one person is like "The majority of bitcoiners oppose this new change" (lol) and another person says "This is practically a protocol change!"
If this were a protocol change... well, it's either a protocol change, or it's not. And it's not. Based on that initial impression, I assume the rest of the thread is meaningless drivel so I skipped it.

[kjj]

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

It isn't that simple, cause with at least one miner on board, we can't do anything. Also why would we fork our own coin, there is enough wasted alt coins that just change one thing, that would just push people away from the cause.

If you can't convince even one single solitary miner to join your cause, shouldn't you begin to consider that maybe the problem is you?

LMAO well since most miners are greedy and looking for money, and this would allow them to net more money, it is kinda hard right? So how would the problem be me?

Well, I guess that confirms where the problem is.  Next time, maybe try not to insult your potential allies.

Actually, I'd almost forgotten about this topic.  At one point, I had been thinking about changing my p2pool miners to accept tiny transactions, but your insane rantings convinced me to stick with the defaults.

[jaywaka2713]

Who else almost forgot that the blockchain is over 7GB?

[Fiyasko]

Who else almost forgot that the blockchain is over 7GB?

You forgot word Already

[kjj]

Well, I guess that confirms where the problem is.  Next time, maybe try not to insult your potential allies.

Actually, I'd almost forgotten about this topic.  At one point, I had been thinking about changing my p2pool miners to accept tiny transactions, but your insane rantings convinced me to stick with the defaults.

How are my rantings insane, they are very rational and voice my opinion. I am actually glad you didn't cause then you wouldn't have done it for the right reasons if someone as you say "insane rantings" pushed you away LMAO. So why you even here then?

Your position can be broken down into two parts:

Part 1.  "I think we should allow arbitrarily small transaction output amounts"   - rational, opinion
Part 2.  "and I want everyone else to be forced to comply with my will instead of being allowed to make their own choices.  Also, the devs are using evil sorcery to trick people into doing their bidding.  The newly added option that lets people express their own policy preferences easily was the last ingredient in their evil spell."  - cookoo, cookoo

(For readers new to this discussion, please read gweedo's many, many posts on this theme, here and elsewhere.  I feel that I've summarized his actual expressions very accurately and fairly.  I don't think that he's ever used the actual word "sorcery", but his logic chain would make underpants gnomes cringe:  1. Devs.  2. ? ? ?  3. Evil/Centralized/Controlled/Undemocratic/Whatever. )

[BitcoinAshley]

kjj +10, an accurate summation of gweedo's strange efforts 

[justusranvier]

Who else almost forgot that the blockchain is over 7GB?

Code:

lithium ~ # df -h
Filesystem                   Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/lithium-storage  9.4T  1.5T  7.9T  16% /srv/nfs

Still not a problem for the equipment available for a home PC.

[BitcoinAshley]

Only one issue is that I am not forcing anyone to comply with this but everyone else is forcing me to comply with it. So yeah Part 2 can't be true at all for that reason.

Nobody's "forcing you" to do anything, they're just rejecting your potential transactions that don't meet certain requirements.

I feel like this has probably been explained to you multiple times so I am probably wasting my time. But here goes. It's simple:
-Miners have always been able to choose which size transactions to accept or decline.
-It used to be very hard to do this and require reconfiguration and recompiling the code
-Now it's very easy to do this via a .conf file. 

The miners are 'forcing' you, just like they always have, to only expect to have a tx included in a block if it meets their requirements. It just so happens to be a lot easier to change those requirements now.

The baker does not have to accept the candlesticks from the candlestick maker if they do not meet his specifications. The butcher does not have to accept the bread from the baker if they do not satisfy his taste buds. The auto mechanic does not have to service your car if you hand him a little toy plastic car and he knows you're not worth his time. The miner does not have to accept your tx if he doesn't want to - no matter the reason.

You'd be a pretty good socialist. You want to keep the code in its archaic form where miners are [almost] forced to accept ALL transactions because the method to restrict certain tx types involves an intimate understanding of how to reconfigure and recompile the codebase that most miners won't have. That's like the automakers who use fancy security torx bits on the MAF sensor for no other reason than the torx companies have a deal with the automaker so they sell more security torx bits. This change is like Gavin replacing the fancy torx bits with a philips-head bolt or hex head.

Sounds like someone can't handle the free market Welcome to Bitcoin.

[jaywaka2713]

Who else almost forgot that the blockchain is over 7GB?

Code:

lithium ~ # df -h
Filesystem                   Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/lithium-storage  9.4T  1.5T  7.9T  16% /srv/nfs

Still not a problem for the equipment available for a home PC.

Dude nice harddrive! What make and model is it? And what linux distro do you run?

On-Topic: Yes, almost any miner and bitcoin user is capable of storing the blockchain, however, it simply is not efficient for mobile devices.

[jaywaka2713]

Only one issue is that I am not forcing anyone to comply with this but everyone else is forcing me to comply with it. So yeah Part 2 can't be true at all for that reason.

Nobody's "forcing you" to do anything, they're just rejecting your potential transactions that don't meet certain requirements.

So they are forcing me to do what they want. LMAO I am done with this thread, cause it is just repeating.

Also it is just a cover up for the problems the core devs can't solve.

Well free markets are all about competition right? Why not code your own Bitcoin platform that can host Node code that you believe in, and promote it?

[jaywaka2713]

Only one issue is that I am not forcing anyone to comply with this but everyone else is forcing me to comply with it. So yeah Part 2 can't be true at all for that reason.

Nobody's "forcing you" to do anything, they're just rejecting your potential transactions that don't meet certain requirements.

So they are forcing me to do what they want. LMAO I am done with this thread, cause it is just repeating.

Also it is just a cover up for the problems the core devs can't solve.

Well free markets are all about competition right? Why not code your own Bitcoin platform that can host Node code that you believe in, and promote it?

I been thru all this already, no you can't make a full node client that is 100% compatible with the reference client.

Does it really HAVE to be though? As long as your fixes work, and transactions get seen, there shouldn't be an issue right?

[jaywaka2713]

Only one issue is that I am not forcing anyone to comply with this but everyone else is forcing me to comply with it. So yeah Part 2 can't be true at all for that reason.

Nobody's "forcing you" to do anything, they're just rejecting your potential transactions that don't meet certain requirements.

So they are forcing me to do what they want. LMAO I am done with this thread, cause it is just repeating.

Also it is just a cover up for the problems the core devs can't solve.

Well free markets are all about competition right? Why not code your own Bitcoin platform that can host Node code that you believe in, and promote it?

I been thru all this already, no you can't make a full node client that is 100% compatible with the reference client.

Does it really HAVE to be though? As long as your fixes work, and transactions get seen, there shouldn't be an issue right?

But then you would just be a "cancer node" not helping the network.

True. That wouldn't help too much. I still think the microtransaction thing needs to be revised. There was no vote, there was no community decision. The hard filter value of 0.00000539 BTC or whatever it is should have been voted on. Client development currently isn't democratic, and that's why I continue to run the 0.8.1 client and host that node version.

[jaywaka2713]

True. That wouldn't help too much. I still think the microtransaction thing needs to be revised. There was no vote, there was no community decision. The hard filter value of 0.00000539 BTC or whatever it is should have been voted on. Client development currently isn't democratic, and that's why I continue to run the 0.8.1 client and host that node version.

I run 0.8.2 but with the relay configs. Exactly that is all I am saying it is that no one voted, no lets us have a debate or talk about it. It was just done! Bitcoin development can't be like that.

I totally agree with you on that. The devs are letting their opinions rule development.

[DeathAndTaxes]

True. That wouldn't help too much. I still think the microtransaction thing needs to be revised. There was no vote, there was no community decision. The hard filter value of 0.00000539 BTC or whatever it is should have been voted on. Client development currently isn't democratic, and that's why I continue to run the 0.8.1 client and host that node version.

There is no hard value.  You vote by setting the dust threshold for your node.  5430 satoshis is simply the default.  If a significant minority of nodes make it 1000 instead then smaller tx will be relayed.  So the framework for your "vote" is there right now.  Staying on an obsolete version is just silly though.  You do realize you can set the dust threshold to whatever you want in 0.8.2?

[jaywaka2713]

True. That wouldn't help too much. I still think the microtransaction thing needs to be revised. There was no vote, there was no community decision. The hard filter value of 0.00000539 BTC or whatever it is should have been voted on. Client development currently isn't democratic, and that's why I continue to run the 0.8.1 client and host that node version.

There is no hard value.  You vote by setting the dust threshold for your node.  5430 satoshis is simply the default.  If a significant minority of nodes make it 1000 instead then smaller tx will be relayed.  So the framework for your "vote" is there right now.  Staying on an obsolete version is just silly though.  You do realize you can set the dust threshold to whatever you want in 0.8.2?

I will upgrade the node. What line needs to be added to the conf file to change the dust threshold?

[justusranvier]

Dude nice harddrive! What make and model is it? And what linux distro do you run?

LVM over mdraid-6 on eight LUKS-formatted 2TB hard drives of varying brands and manufacturing lots. Gentoo Linux.

On-Topic: Yes, almost any miner and bitcoin user is capable of storing the blockchain, however, it simply is not efficient for mobile devices.

Mobile devices and casual users will soon have better options that will not require them to attempt to store the entire blockchain or trust a central server.

[Syke]

What is the reason not to send less that bitcoins to someone?

Because they wouldn't be able to spend it.