Boycott 0.8.2

[Buffer Overflow]

You can still send micro-transactions even with the default 0.8.2 options, albeit at greater trouble and required trust.

Spammer Alice wants to send user Bob a pointless 0.00000020 BTC.
Alice sends Bob 1.00000000 BTC and then after confirmations, Bob sends back Alice 0.99999980.

Everyones happy.

Well, that's all sorted we can now flag this thread as resolved and locked.

[AliceWonder]

You can still send micro-transactions even with the default 0.8.2 options, albeit at greater trouble and required trust.

Spammer Alice wants to send user Bob a pointless 0.00000020 BTC.
Alice sends Bob 1.00000000 BTC and then after confirmations, Bob sends back Alice 0.99999980.

Everyones happy.

Well, that's all sorted we can now flag this thread as resolved and locked.

I prefer it the other way around.
Bob sends me 0.99999980 and I send 1 back. When I remember to. Sometime in the future. Really. I promise.

[jaywaka2713]

I may have a solution for consolidating micro transactions! Literally just came to me.

One Node Processing Multiple Dust Payments to One Person

Say John, Alice, and Kate all want to send microtransactions to Joe. Each one being 0.00000001 BTC. A Satoshi. (In this situation, the network blocks dust transactions of only 1 Satoshi, 2 would pass. This is simply an example.) Because of their low transactions, they won't get processed.

Solution? How about we bundle their transactions using Nodes? We could have a list of nodes set up and displayed somewhere here on the thread, where one could register to be added to the Node's "dustbook".

So if John, Alice, and Kate were to all register with Jacob's Node, when their Satoshi transactions are sent, the Node senses them all, rewrites them, and broadcasts it to the rest of the network as a reverse sendmany transaction to Joe. So the three of them basically bundled their addresses into one virtual "wallet" hosted by the Node only in the instance of the transaction totalling their virtual balance to 0.00000003 BTC, bypassing the 1 Satoshi dust limitation, and Joe gets their dust transactions.

The 1 Satoshi transactions wouldn't be displayed in the blockchain though. Their Satoshis would probably have to be sent directly to the node in some manner, where they then get rebroadcasted in one transaction. It's more efficient than having 3 transactions, and the dust value would go through.

To apply this to Bitcoin's current rules, just simply add more people and a slightly higher value to their transactions.

Graphical Representation:

1John -> JacobNode

1Alice -> JacobNode } JacobNode -> 1Joe

1Kate -> JacobNode

The transactions to JacobNode wouldn't show up in blockchain, but the transaction from the Node to Joe would. The transactions into the Node don't need to be broadcasted because the Node would be able to verify that the addresses have the Bitcoin in the first place because of the blockchain anyways.

Faucet Solution

1 Satoshi dust limit situation

Simply, a faucet would pool up a person's faucet earnings until they passed the dust limit. Or on the faucet site, implement a "Cash Out" button that only becomes available after the 1 Satoshi dust limit is passed.

[grue]

I may have a solution for consolidating micro transactions! Literally just came to me.

One Node Processing Multiple Dust Payments to One Person

Say John, Alice, and Kate all want to send microtransactions to Joe. Each one being 0.00000001 BTC. A Satoshi. (In this situation, the network blocks dust transactions of only 1 Satoshi, 2 would pass. This is simply an example.) Because of their low transactions, they won't get processed.

Solution? How about we bundle their transactions using Nodes? We could have a list of nodes set up and displayed somewhere here on the thread, where one could register to be added to the Node's "dustbook".

So if John, Alice, and Kate were to all register with Jacob's Node, when their Satoshi transactions are sent, the Node senses them all, rewrites them, and broadcasts it to the rest of the network as a reverse sendmany transaction to Joe. So the three of them basically bundled their addresses into one virtual "wallet" hosted by the Node only in the instance of the transaction totalling their virtual balance to 0.00000003 BTC, bypassing the 1 Satoshi dust limitation, and Joe gets their dust transactions.

The 1 Satoshi transactions wouldn't be displayed in the blockchain though. Their Satoshis would probably have to be sent directly to the node in some manner, where they then get rebroadcasted in one transaction. It's more efficient than having 3 transactions, and the dust value would go through.

To apply this to Bitcoin's current rules, just simply add more people and a slightly higher value to their transactions.

Graphical Representation:

1John -> JacobNode

1Alice -> JacobNode } JacobNode -> 1Joe

1Kate -> JacobNode

The transactions to JacobNode wouldn't show up in blockchain, but the transaction from the Node to Joe would. The transactions into the Node don't need to be broadcasted because the Node would be able to verify that the addresses have the Bitcoin in the first place because of the blockchain anyways.

Faucet Solution

1 Satoshi dust limit situation

Simply, a faucet would pool up a person's faucet earnings until they passed the dust limit. Or on the faucet site, implement a "Cash Out" button that only becomes available after the 1 Satoshi dust limit is passed.

what's the advantage of this over off-the-chain transactions? It's essentially what you're proposing.

[sturle]

When I was born the smallest denomination of coins in my currency was worth about 0.001 USD.  Everybody agreed it was dumb and an annoyance and a waste of time and wallet space, so we stopped production of the coins.  You can still use them for payment if you have some, but a merchant don't have to accept them.  I don't think many will.

Over the years the same thing happened to the lowest denomination of coins several times.  Last year production of the coin worth ~0.1 USD was stopped.  The lowest denomination now is worth ~0.2 USD.

I can't remember to have heard a single complaint about this.  Nobody wants their pockets to be full of worthless change.  You can collect the coins if you want to, try to spend them if you want to, accept them if you want to.  But people and businesses in general are no longer wasting their time on them.

This is more or less what is happening here.  If you have a special interest for nanotransactions you can still do them with people sharing your interest.  Common users will happily ignore the nanotransactions until someone else mine them, because they are dumb and an annoyance and a waste of our CPU time, network, storage and electricity.

[jaywaka2713]

what's the advantage of this over off-the-chain transactions? It's essentially what you're proposing.

Could you explain the details of how off-the-chain transactions work? Wasn't aware of such an option.

However, the advantage here is that micro transactions can go on with people who want them. Say 1000 people want to send a satoshi to you. Instead of 1000 meaningless transactions, my method bundles it into one. My method actually works best if the dust limit is raised even higher. However I have noticed that there is a con. Because the node bundles the input into one single wallet, they essentially act as short term banks. They could become prone to attackers wanting to steal the wallets. Only a possibility.

[grue]

what's the advantage of this over off-the-chain transactions? It's essentially what you're proposing.

Could you explain the details of how off-the-chain transactions work? Wasn't aware of such an option.

However, the advantage here is that micro transactions can go on with people who want them. Say 1000 people want to send a satoshi to you. Instead of 1000 meaningless transactions, my method bundles it into one. My method actually works best if the dust limit is raised even higher. However I have noticed that there is a con. Because the node bundles the input into one single wallet, they essentially act as short term banks. They could become prone to attackers wanting to steal the wallets. Only a possibility.

that's the definition of off the chain transactions: a trusted third party accumulates (stores) microtransactions and bundles them into big transactions.

[jaywaka2713]

Oh OK. So my method basically is an off the chain transaction. However, in my method, due to sending bitcoin to the nodes off the chain, can any transaction out of the node to whomever be confirmed? I don't know how confirmations really work.

[grue]

Oh OK. So my method basically is an off the chain transaction. However, in my method, due to sending bitcoin to the nodes off the chain, can any transaction out of the node to whomever be confirmed? I don't know how confirmations really work.

"confirmations" come from transactions being included in a block. With off-the-chain transactions, you're trusting a third party to hold and transmit your dust payments. Also, you should look up the info yourself instead of wasting other forum members' time. Asking answered questions adds clutter to the forum.

[jaywaka2713]

Oh OK. So my method basically is an off the chain transaction. However, in my method, due to sending bitcoin to the nodes off the chain, can any transaction out of the node to whomever be confirmed? I don't know how confirmations really work.

"confirmations" come from transactions being included in a block. With off-the-chain transactions, you're trusting a third party to hold and transmit your dust payments. Also, you should look up the info yourself instead of wasting other forum members' time. Asking answered questions adds clutter to the forum.

I understand that, but would like to have various explanations to a topic because everyone thinks differently. I just don't know how you can verify that the third-party actually had real Bitcoins submitted to it. Why not just invent some Bitcoins and then send them on the chain?

[grue]

I understand that, but would like to have various explanations to a topic because everyone thinks differently. I just don't know how you can verify that the third-party actually had real Bitcoins submitted to it. Why not just invent some Bitcoins and then send them on the chain?

It's bitcoin protocol. There's no opinions or "various explanations" on it. Also, if you attempt a double spend, all nodes will reject it. If you did some fucking research, you would know that.

[rme]

Oh OK. So my method basically is an off the chain transaction. However, in my method, due to sending bitcoin to the nodes off the chain, can any transaction out of the node to whomever be confirmed? I don't know how confirmations really work.

"confirmations" come from transactions being included in a block. With off-the-chain transactions, you're trusting a third party to hold and transmit your dust payments. Also, you should look up the info yourself instead of wasting other forum members' time. Asking answered questions adds clutter to the forum.

I understand that, but would like to have various explanations to a topic because everyone thinks differently. I just don't know how you can verify that the third-party actually had real Bitcoins submitted to it. Why not just invent some Bitcoins and then send them on the chain?

Nodes would not accept that

[ktttn]

Real world question: I'm using as many faucets as I can, and I've accumulated .005+ btc.
Using the address in my sig, will I ever be able to spend my btc assuming I continue with these microtransactions? I'm super poor.
I haven't finished reading the thread, btw, so sorry if I missed something.
Halp?

[Buffer Overflow]

Real world question: I'm using as many faucets as I can, and I've accumulated .005+ btc.
Using the address in my sig, will I ever be able to spend my btc assuming I continue with these microtransactions? I'm super poor.
I haven't finished reading the thread, btw, so sorry if I missed something.
Halp?

If you keep spending instead of saving in life, you'll always stay poor.

[melvster]

Its 0.007$... thats ONE cent..

Today.  What about tomorrow or the next.  The whole idea of bitcoin is we don't have someone telling us how we can or can't spend our coins.  This all changes when GAVIN decides so.  This is not decentralization.  This is a dictator telling us what we can and can't do with our money.  This goes against everything I was told bitcoin stood for.  This will collapse the entire notion of what bitcoin says it is as a whole if this happens.

Yes, that's right, get used to it. 

Developer consensus can change the protocol rules, that's just how it works. 

No one is forced to download the changes.  If the chain is split or poor changes are introduced, it's bad for bitcoin, but other alt currencies will become more attractive.

I think there will come a 51% attack on bitcoin, not through mining, but through attacking the developer consensus process.  Vote stuffing is normal in standarization.  For me, it's not a question of, IF, but of WHEN.  My hope is that bitcoin can survive a few more years yet. 

There's also many examples of open source projects that are well managed.  But when more money gets involved, it becomes that much harder.  So pray, that btc does not rise in price too fast ...

[worldinacoin]

I think the boycott is a total failure

[melvster]

I think the boycott is a total failure

Sure.  It was never going to cause a fork, but the PR was noticed.

The more interesting question is, what kind of change *would* trigger a meaningful boycott.

If you can work that out, you've torpedoed btc ...

[ktttn]

Real world question: I'm using as many faucets as I can, and I've accumulated .005+ btc.
Using the address in my sig, will I ever be able to spend my btc assuming I continue with these microtransactions? I'm super poor.
I haven't finished reading the thread, btw, so sorry if I missed something.
Halp?

If you keep spending instead of saving in life, you'll always stay poor.

Thanks to bitcoin, I can actually save some money now.
I've been boycotting fiat for years now.

[ktttn]

Real world question: I'm using as many faucets as I can, and I've accumulated .005+ btc.
Using the address in my sig, will I ever be able to spend my btc assuming I continue with these microtransactions? I'm super poor.
I haven't finished reading the thread, btw, so sorry if I missed something.
Halp?

You will be fine for as long as transaction is 0.00005430 BTC or more and you pay transaction fees.

Thank you.
Would you be so kind as to reference 'coin aging'? I've been explaining it in terms of a bag of pennies melting into a blob of copper. Is this accurate?

I'm much obliged.

[notme]

Its 0.007$... thats ONE cent..

Today.  What about tomorrow or the next.  The whole idea of bitcoin is we don't have someone telling us how we can or can't spend our coins.  This all changes when GAVIN decides so.  This is not decentralization.  This is a dictator telling us what we can and can't do with our money.  This goes against everything I was told bitcoin stood for.  This will collapse the entire notion of what bitcoin says it is as a whole if this happens.

Yes, that's right, get used to it. 

Developer consensus can change the protocol rules, that's just how it works. 

No one is forced to download the changes.  If the chain is split or poor changes are introduced, it's bad for bitcoin, but other alt currencies will become more attractive.

I think there will come a 51% attack on bitcoin, not through mining, but through attacking the developer consensus process.  Vote stuffing is normal in standarization.  For me, it's not a question of, IF, but of WHEN.  My hope is that bitcoin can survive a few more years yet. 

There's also many examples of open source projects that are well managed.  But when more money gets involved, it becomes that much harder.  So pray, that btc does not rise in price too fast ...

This isn't even a forking change.  If you really want to spend less than a penny, find a miner who is willing to mine your transaction and broadcast it to them.  There is no protocol change here, just some defaults about what to forward and include in blocks that can easily be changed.  If bitcoin price continues to rise, the defaults will likely be changed to adapt and in the mean time miners can edit their configuration files.

As someone who intends to store the complete blockchain until I die, I support these anti-spam measures.