Boycott 0.8.2

[virtualmaster]

You are welcome to send micro-transactions in Namecoin.

[Buffer Overflow]

Yes LTC will solve much of the problems that BTC has. 0.9 LTC should be significantly different from BTC and should be able to deal with micro transactions much better than BTC.

0.9? Jesus, still waiting for 0.7!

[solex]

Yes LTC will solve much of the problems that BTC has. 0.9 LTC should be significantly different from BTC and should be able to deal with micro transactions much better than BTC.

0.9? Jesus, still waiting for 0.7!

Watch it, or you'll be a marked man by the army-sized LTC dev team..."

[TaxReturn]

Litecoin differences to Bitcoin:
Scrypt insted of SHA256
Average block time 2.5 minutes

Somebody enlighten me how this solves any of Bitcoin's fundamental problems with micro-transactions or blockchain bloat. As a matter of fact Litecoin has all the same basic design problems Bitcoin has, they are just not as visible yet because the total transaction volume is much lower. Whatever the solution for micro-transactions might be, Litecoin isn't it.

[justusranvier]

Litecoin differences to Bitcoin:
Scrypt insted of SHA256
Average block time 2.5 minutes

Somebody enlighten me how this solves any of Bitcoin's fundamental problems with micro-transactions or blockchain bloat. As a matter of fact Litecoin has all the same basic design problems Bitcoin has, they are just not as visible yet because the total transaction volume is much lower.

It does not and never will solve those problems before Bitcoin solves them.

Bitcoin will always have more human and financial capital available to apply towards finding solutions to these problems.

[Bitcoinpro]

why block a 1 satoshi transation when it could be used to by a can of soda by the end of the year 

[Buffer Overflow]

why block a 1 satoshi transation when it could be used to by a can of soda by the end of the year 

Because at the present time, Bitcoin network and the Litecoin network cannot cope with it. Also 1 satoshi is expensive for the miner to put in a block.

[Bitcoinpro]

why block a 1 satoshi transation when it could be used to by a can of soda by the end of the year 

Because at the present time, Bitcoin network and the Litecoin network cannot cope with it. Also 1 satoshi is expensive for the miner to put in a block.

well its still going to cause bitcoin to rise more slowly than it would otherwise would, by making it worth less and less divisible, its just an over reaction i rekon the next price upswing is coming sooner rather than later everyone is wanting in on it and its like a steam train coming down the mountain

[Buffer Overflow]

why block a 1 satoshi transation when it could be used to by a can of soda by the end of the year 

Because at the present time, Bitcoin network and the Litecoin network cannot cope with it. Also 1 satoshi is expensive for the miner to put in a block.

well its still going to cause bitcoin to rise more slowly than it would otherwise would, by making it worth less and less divisible, its just an over reaction i rekon the next price upswing is coming sooner rather than later everyone is wanting in on it and its like a steam train coming down the mountain

I'm happy with a nice gently price rise. Slow and steady. 

[meanig]

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.

Yes LTC will solve much of the problems that BTC has. 0.9 LTC should be significantly different from BTC and should be able to deal with micro transactions much better than BTC.

Cool. I can't wait to spam the shit of out Litecoin 0.9 

[jaywaka2713]

The fact you can run 0.8.1 and still participate in Bitcoin system means development is as democratic as it could be. If core developers do not care
for you and alikes, 0.8.2 would be mandatory and you would have no choice really because all useful services would quickly switch to that version.

No it isn't. DEVELOPMENT should be democratic, and we should have a say in what features are added/don't get added. Yes I can run 0.8.1 all I want, but because the node code was rewritten, my microtransactions may no longer be processed. The feature shouldn't have been added without a vote.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Litecoin differences to Bitcoin:
Scrypt insted of SHA256
Average block time 2.5 minutes

Somebody enlighten me how this solves any of Bitcoin's fundamental problems with micro-transactions or blockchain bloat. As a matter of fact Litecoin has all the same basic design problems Bitcoin has, they are just not as visible yet because the total transaction volume is much lower. Whatever the solution for micro-transactions might be, Litecoin isn't it.

It doesn't.  As you point out the exact same constraints exist.  While LTC has 4x as many blocks it will incur orphans at an accelerated rate due to propagation delays for very large blocks.

A 100MB block every 10 minutes or 25MB block every 2.5 minutes the same constraint exists.   If/when LTC becomes popular it will be forced to implement "dust threshold" as well or the UXTO size will explode making the burden on full nodes even more punitive.

Those saying "LTC is designed for microtransactions" just have a bridge to sell.  It would be possible to design a cryptocurrency for micro transactions but it isn't LTC.

[AliceWonder]

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?

Censorship.

Seems more like common sense to me.
Careful about assigning words like censorship where they do not belong, it weakens the meaning of the word, and then when there is real censorship - no one listens because you used it this way too much.

[AliceWonder]

The fact you can run 0.8.1 and still participate in Bitcoin system means development is as democratic as it could be. If core developers do not care
for you and alikes, 0.8.2 would be mandatory and you would have no choice really because all useful services would quickly switch to that version.

No it isn't. DEVELOPMENT should be democratic, and we should have a say in what features are added/don't get added. Yes I can run 0.8.1 all I want, but because the node code was rewritten, my microtransactions may no longer be processed. The feature shouldn't have been added without a vote.

Development can't be democratic because most people do not understand the code or the ramifications well enough to make an intelligent vote.

What FLOSS does allow is forking when someone who does understand things believes he has a better idea.

[AliceWonder]

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?

Censorship.

Seems more like common sense to me.
Careful about assigning words like censorship where they do not belong, it weakens the meaning of the word, and then when there is real censorship - no one listens because you used it this way too much.

How is common sense? Remember this is like Microsoft saying, "hey we can't build a great firewall, so we are turning off the internet in all our OS, but it is temp fix". And technically if you look up censorship it was used properly here.

It's common sense because bitcoin is designed for meaningful currency transactions, not data storage or secret signals or whatever else you might be abusing the blockchain for with meaningless transactions.

[AliceWonder]

I shouldn't have to tell you more.
Common sense should.

Also, I don't want my computer seized because there are child porn or other restricted links in the block chain.
The fact that I know they are there could be construed as knowingly downloading and distributing them.

I don't want to give the .gov ammunition to shut down bitcoin in the US claiming it is aiding child porn rings.

[Buffer Overflow]

Litecoin differences to Bitcoin:
Scrypt insted of SHA256
Average block time 2.5 minutes

Somebody enlighten me how this solves any of Bitcoin's fundamental problems with micro-transactions or blockchain bloat. As a matter of fact Litecoin has all the same basic design problems Bitcoin has, they are just not as visible yet because the total transaction volume is much lower. Whatever the solution for micro-transactions might be, Litecoin isn't it.

It doesn't.  As you point out the exact same constraints exist.  While LTC has 4x as many blocks it will incur orphans at an accelerated rate due to propagation delays for very large blocks.

A 100MB block every 10 minutes or 25MB block every 2.5 minutes the same constraint exists.   If/when LTC becomes popular it will be forced to implement "dust threshold" as well or the UXTO size will explode making the burden on full nodes even more punitive.

Those saying "LTC is designed for microtransactions" just have a bridge to sell.  It would be possible to design a cryptocurrency for micro transactionis but it isn't LTC.

+1

The only problem LTC solves is what miners can do with their now Bitcoin obsolete GPUs. While I hold and currently mine LTC, the long-term viability is a concern.

[Boussac]

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?

Censorship.

Seems more like common sense to me.
Careful about assigning words like censorship where they do not belong, it weakens the meaning of the word, and then when there is real censorship - no one listens because you used it this way too much.

How is common sense? Remember this is like Microsoft saying, "hey we can't build a great firewall, so we are turning off the internet in all our OS, but it is temp fix". And technically if you look up censorship it was used properly here.

It's common sense because bitcoin is designed for meaningful currency transactions, not data storage or secret signals or whatever else you might be abusing the blockchain for with meaningless transactions.

Oh please tell me more. Please be a dictator and tell me how my currency should be used, since apparently I been using it completely wrong. Should I give you my bitcoins so you can spend them for me. LMAO bitcoin is a freedom of speech and I can use it how I want. Also it is a free market and you basically are calling for the end of businesses.

You are suggesting antispam is dictatorship..
No freedom of speech is absolute like there is no such thing as absolute freedom in society.
As soon a your freedom is trampling on someone else's freedom, you are both losing freedom or you are the dictator.

[BitcoinAshley]

... censorship ... freedom ... dictatorship ... blah blah blah ...

Let's clear up some misconceptions:

• Fees are completely optional. You don't have to pay a fee if you don't want to. Nobody is forcing anyone to pay any fee.
• There are several clients. 0.8.2 refers to a single version of the Bitcoin-qt client. You don't have to use this client if you don't want to. Use another client if you want to, or use Blockchain.info, or Coinbase. Nobody cares what client you use.
• If you don't like something about 0.8.2, you can download the source and make any changes you want to it. You can even remove the code that imposes transaction fees, if that is the part you object to.

Exactly. I think folks are just butthurt that there aren't any miners who will relay their tx. Instead of convincing anyone that a line in the .conf file is "censorship" they should spend their energy convincing a few miners to remove that line so that they can have their beloved microTX included in a block.
I don't understand why we're wasting so much time talking about something that was ALWAYS POSSIBLE, and now is just a little easier. We need to continue moving towards a free tx-fee market, but the socialist weenies are holding us back.

[Syke]

3) Again this protocol change, so I would have to convince miner to mine my transactions

Duh! Of course you need to convince miners to mine your transactions. That's the way it has always been. That's the way it will always be.

If you want miners to mine your spammy dust transactions, then attach a nice big fee to it. You'll have plenty of miners willing to mine it for you.

Your problem is you want to send dust without paying for it.