Boycott 0.8.2

[capsqrl]

I hereby boycott 0.8.2! Going with 0.8.3 instead.

[1714840718]

1714840718

[1714840718]

1714840718

[1714840718]

1714840718

[1714840718]

1714840718

[jaywaka2713]

I hereby boycott 0.8.2! Going with 0.8.3 instead.

The only fix was an issue being complained about in a recent thread. Hopefully the author was happy.

[jgarzik]

I hereby boycott 0.8.2! Going with 0.8.3 instead.

The only fix was an issue being complained about in a recent thread. Hopefully the author was happy.

In 0.8.3?  The fix is a vulnerability an attacker exploited on mainnet to crash several nodes,.

[Amitabh S]

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.

I just read https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit.  Why can't you just use small transactions instead of dust below the threashold?

What if tomorrow the devs again decide to raise the minimum limit? What will happen to earlier colored coins?

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.

I just read https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit.  Why can't you just use small transactions instead of dust below the threashold?

What if tomorrow the devs again decide to raise the minimum limit? What will happen to earlier colored coins?

There is no set minimum only a default.  Lower the min fee to relay setting for your node (default is 0.1 mBTC in 0.8.2) and you lower the dust threshold (54.3% of prior value).  If enough miners and relay nodes operate with a lower value it doesn't really matter what the default is.  However the trend has been that the min fee has gone DOWN (in nominal terms) over time due to the deflationary nature of Bitcoin and the rising exchange rate.

[jaywaka2713]

However the trend has been that the min fee has gone DOWN (in nominal terms) over time due to the deflationary nature of Bitcoin and the rising exchange rate.

So true. Sadly, most people can't comprehend that. If bitcoin suddenly traded at $200, the dust threshold could be reduced by half, because the minimum fee drops by half. It's just about balances.

You have your minimum fee for accepting a transaction (1 mBTC default).
The dust threshold is just 54.3% of that. Basically anything under 0.5 mBTC won't be verified.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You have your minimum fee for accepting a transaction (0.1 mBTC default).
The dust threshold is just 54.3% of that. Basically anything under 0.5 mBTC won't be verified. relayed by nodes using the default value for the minimum relay fee on low priority transactions.

Corrected your post it is 0.1mBTC.  If a node still relays it (either because it has set a lower min fee or it is running different code) and a miner includes it in a block the transaction and block will still be accepted by the network.

[jaywaka2713]

You have your minimum fee for accepting a transaction (0.1 mBTC default).
The dust threshold is just 54.3% of that. Basically anything under 0.5 mBTC won't be verified. relayed by nodes using the default value for the minimum relay fee on low priority transactions.

Corrected your post it is 0.1mBTC.  If a node still relays it (either because it has set a lower min fee or it is running different code) and a miner includes it in a block the transaction and block will still be accepted by the network.

Oh thank you for your correction. Just a question, do miners pull transactions from nodes to put them in solved blocks? Or are miners essentially nodes themselves. Never really got around to understanding that.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You have your minimum fee for accepting a transaction (0.1 mBTC default).
The dust threshold is just 54.3% of that. Basically anything under 0.5 mBTC won't be verified. relayed by nodes using the default value for the minimum relay fee on low priority transactions.

Corrected your post it is 0.1mBTC.  If a node still relays it (either because it has set a lower min fee or it is running different code) and a miner includes it in a block the transaction and block will still be accepted by the network.

Oh thank you for your correction. Just a question, do miners pull transactions from nodes to put them in solved blocks? Or are miners essentially nodes themselves. Never really got around to understanding that.

Miners are simply a node that also happens to create and publish blocks.  In the earliest client all nodes were mining by default as the client itself had a built in miner module which ran in the background. Miners in the context is the entity designing the block.  So called "pool miners" are merely hashpower suppliers.  Miners learn about new transactions the same way any other node does, they receive a message from a peer node.

[Insu Dra]

So where is my 8.1.<doss resistance> patch ? I'm all for boycott but plz provide me the tools to support your boycott .... 

[hl5460]

So where is my 8.1.<doss resistance> patch ? I'm all for boycott but plz provide me the tools to support your boycott .... 

0.8.3 is available.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.8.3/

[Insu Dra]

So where is my 8.1.<doss resistance> patch ? I'm all for boycott but plz provide me the tools to support your boycott .... 

0.8.3 is available.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.8.3/

Your missing the point of 0.8.2 boycott, ofc 0.8.3 contains the changes made in 0.8.2, the same changes he wanted to boycott in first place ...

[melvster]

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.

I just read https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit.  Why can't you just use small transactions instead of dust below the threashold?

What if tomorrow the devs again decide to raise the minimum limit? What will happen to earlier colored coins?

There is no set minimum only a default.  Lower the min fee to relay setting for your node (default is 0.1 mBTC in 0.8.2) and you lower the dust threshold (54.3% of prior value).  If enough miners and relay nodes operate with a lower value it doesn't really matter what the default is.  However the trend has been that the min fee has gone DOWN (in nominal terms) over time due to the deflationary nature of Bitcoin and the rising exchange rate.

I think you under estimate the power of defaults.  Nobody changes the default, and no one was ever going to change the default. 

This is a consequential change, because one of the key qualities of bitcoin is divisibility.   This change shatters divisibility.  Colored coin people also suffered, but they are a minority.

The gain was that all the spam from satoshi dice, which is considerable, was lessened.

It's all about pros and cons.

In my view this was satoshi's project, and now it's gavins.  Huge shoes to fill, but he's done a great job so far. 

We should however be vigilant over future changes, in a reasoned way, and I think that's exactly what the core dev team want to happen.

[jgarzik]

The gain was that all the spam from satoshi dice, which is considerable, was lessened.

No.  The recent dust change did not target SatoshiDICE.  They increased their payout on losing bets immediately, demonstrating this.

The recent dust change addressed the people who were dumping megabytes worth of data, such as the full contents of wikileaks cables, into the blockchain.

[notme]

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.

I just read https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit.  Why can't you just use small transactions instead of dust below the threashold?

What if tomorrow the devs again decide to raise the minimum limit? What will happen to earlier colored coins?

There is no set minimum only a default.  Lower the min fee to relay setting for your node (default is 0.1 mBTC in 0.8.2) and you lower the dust threshold (54.3% of prior value).  If enough miners and relay nodes operate with a lower value it doesn't really matter what the default is.  However the trend has been that the min fee has gone DOWN (in nominal terms) over time due to the deflationary nature of Bitcoin and the rising exchange rate.

I think you under estimate the power of defaults.  Nobody changes the default, and no one was ever going to change the default.  

This is a consequential change, because one of the key qualities of bitcoin is divisibility.   This change shatters divisibility.  Colored coin people also suffered, but they are a minority.

The gain was that all the spam from satoshi dice, which is considerable, was lessened.

It's all about pros and cons.

In my view this was satoshi's project, and now it's gavins.  Huge shoes to fill, but he's done a great job so far.  

We should however be vigilant over future changes, in a reasoned way, and I think that's exactly what the core dev team want to happen.

Change one line here:
main.cpp:55:
int64 CTransaction::nMinRelayTxFee = 10000;

Build binaries.  Make said binaries publicly available.  Accept the market's decision.  Anything else is just pointless bitching.  In open source software, disagreements are resolved through action, not words.

[defaced]

What is the dev's reasoning for blocking microtransactions? Is it to avoid people spamming the blockchain?

Yes.

exactly the reason. DUST

[worldinacoin]

0.83 is out, you may want to start boycotting 0.83 as well

[Eri]

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.

I just read https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit.  Why can't you just use small transactions instead of dust below the threashold?

What if tomorrow the devs again decide to raise the minimum limit? What will happen to earlier colored coins?

There is no set minimum only a default.  Lower the min fee to relay setting for your node (default is 0.1 mBTC in 0.8.2) and you lower the dust threshold (54.3% of prior value).  If enough miners and relay nodes operate with a lower value it doesn't really matter what the default is.  However the trend has been that the min fee has gone DOWN (in nominal terms) over time due to the deflationary nature of Bitcoin and the rising exchange rate.

I think you under estimate the power of defaults.  Nobody changes the default, and no one was ever going to change the default. 

This is a consequential change, because one of the key qualities of bitcoin is divisibility.   This change shatters divisibility.  Colored coin people also suffered, but they are a minority.

The gain was that all the spam from satoshi dice, which is considerable, was lessened.

It's all about pros and cons.

In my view this was satoshi's project, and now it's gavins.  Huge shoes to fill, but he's done a great job so far. 

We should however be vigilant over future changes, in a reasoned way, and I think that's exactly what the core dev team want to happen.

Regarding colored coins. In my own personal view i dont see them as "bitcoin" they are a system built upon bitcoin that seeks to use it for its own purposes that are not strictly aligned with the concept of *this amount of bitcoins is worth this*. As a result i dont think its the devs responsibility to cater to a system that uses bitcoin for its own purposes at the expense of bitcoin itself. Regardless, there is no reason why colored coins cant continue to exist and function with a higher value and a larger amount of bitcoins.


The people that understand the issue regarding dust, know why this change is needed. The people that are against it, I dont think they understand the issue and as a result are not in a good position to judge whether or not its a good choice even if they think they may understand it.

But let me try to clarify some stuff.

Divisibility as far as bitcoin is concerned means how many decimal places to the right you can go. This aspect of bitcoin has not been altered in any way. the definition of what makes a non standard transaction has been expanded, to cover what is referred to now as 'dust' outputs. Dust outputs, are not able to be spent as inputs for the recipient, without significant fees AND/OR wait time due to how the fee structure works, and has always worked(1), this is why we want to block 'dust outputs'. Fees have changed over time but have never been configurable client side. now with this update its lower then ever before and is configurable client side, with the value of dust being a percent of whatever you set the fee to. If by divisibility you mean 'its unfair i cant send half a penny, or 1/10th of a penny or 1/1000th of a penny.' Then you should be informed that you can if you connect to a node that mines them. But the recipient will still be saddled with large fees AND/OR large wait times, Regardless of whether this change happens or not.(1)

(1) this is partially negated by a pool ignoring certain rules for what is considered spam on the network, Which would allow anyone to simply flood blocks with garbage if they want unless they implement their own set of rules as to what they think doesnt belong in the blockchain.

The bottom line, bitcoin is a complex system that as we all knows requires a great deal of understanding to fully grasp. This change is needed.

[smoothie]

So I am guessing most upgraded their clients to the new version?

[melvster]

So I am guessing most upgraded their clients to the new version?

Looks like 0.8.3 introduced a double spend attack

http://ftp://ftp.inf.ethz.ch/pub/publications/tech-reports/7xx/789.pdf