Bitcoin 0.8.2. What do you think?

[gweedo]

Would I said it is time for a fork I don't know yet.

If I could get Peter Thiel and Paul Allen to join a new foundation for a new cryptocurrency that preserves some of the best features of Bitcoin, yet implements some of the features of the Hard Fork wishlist. Would you consider adopting it?

I was thinking about a system with 100 million bitcoin2.0s with 21 million premined and given to a special exchange allowing bitcoiners to convert their holdings in btc to btc2.0 on a 1-1 conversion rate. Miners would have control of transaction fees by a market system. Perhaps develop a P2P currency exchange to eliminate the need for a Mtgox.

I might write a whitepaper over the Summer. 

No your going to the wrong direction, your going to the alt-coin that is too extreme, I still love bitcoins, I am not going anywhere. Bitcoins are my career, and this is just a bump in the experiment, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[1714611133]

1714611133

[1714611133]

1714611133

[tvbcof]

No your going to the wrong direction, your going to the alt-coin that is too extreme, I still love bitcoins, I am not going anywhere. Bitcoins are my career, and this is just a bump in the experiment, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I'm wondering if you had some hope of using the 'cheap subsidized messaging' capabilities of Bitcoin for some project or another and got a dose of cold water in the face?

[nikkisnowe]

Gweedo, before you start your career in Bitcoin, you need to get through the 5th grade.  "You're", not "Your."

[gweedo]

No your going to the wrong direction, your going to the alt-coin that is too extreme, I still love bitcoins, I am not going anywhere. Bitcoins are my career, and this is just a bump in the experiment, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I'm wondering if you had some hope of using the 'cheap subsidized messaging' capabilities of Bitcoin for some project or another and got a dose of cold water in the face?

Nope, not at all, I just feel it is something that takes it too far off of the white papers, that it isn't bitcoin anymore it is devteamcoin or something.

Gweedo, before you start your career in Bitcoin, you need to get through the 5th grade.  "You're", not "Your."

Dude just stop your off-topic, your not helping in anyway, but doing that. We got your point, you think I am dumb, good now bye.

P.S just to throw salt on your wound, I am already started my career, and I am probably richer than you will ever be, so you can be jealous.

[Herbert]

gweedo, you're hilarious. You blaming others of skewing the poll because it does not fit your expectation... This is pure awesomeness 
I just hope that also the devs have the serenity to not take your troll attempts too serious. And respect to everyone who tried to give you a polite and technically sound answer.

[sturle]

Cause it was your option to pay the fees, miner still had to include them and relays still had to relay. Was that big of a deal to be honest. This is completely censoring.

Sorry for being the English police, but do you understand the difference between the words "cause" and "because"?  While your arguments might have merit, you discredit yourself  with  your shitty adolescent understanding of basic grammar.

Two other corrections here:
1. Miners never had to include any transactions in a block.  They have always been free to chose.
2. Relays never had to relay any transactions.  All nodes are free to chose which transactions to relay.

This is, always has been, and will still be in 0.8.2, depending on txfees and other characteristics of the transaction.

Which makes gweedo's entire post wrong, like all of his posts in this thread.  There is not a single clue in his head about how bitcoin works.

[QuestionAuthority]

For a couple of years now I have been reading periodic debates where one guy says, “21M Bitcoins will never be enough if the whole world wants to use it.” Then another guy shows up (DnT) and says, “Oh, but Bitcoin is divisible down so many decimals that it will easily fill the need as adoption increases.”

So which is it: Either adoption is never expected to tax the 21m limit so we can afford to knock off decimals, we will have to return to accepting dust payments eventually so may as well just keep using them now or we need to allow a breach of the 21m limit.

Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.

[sturle]

For a couple of years now I have been reading periodic debates where one guy says, “21M Bitcoins will never be enough if the whole world wants to use it.” Then another guy shows up (DnT) and says, “Oh, but Bitcoin is divisible down so many decimals that it will easily fill the need as adoption increases.”

So which is it: Either adoption is never expected to tax the 21m limit so we can afford to knock off decimals, we will have to return to accepting dust payments eventually so may as well just keep using them now or we need to allow a breach of the 21m limit.

No decimals are knocked off.  The minimum value is calculated from the minimum fee.  When the minimum fee goes down (it has gone from 0.01 BTC to 0.0001 BTC while I have been using bitcoin), the size of economically unspendable outputs will decrease as well.  In the future the minimum fee will get calculated dynamically based on which transactions actually make it to the blockchain, and eventually a 0.00000001 BTC output will become standard again.

Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.

I disagree. Pruning valid unspent outputs would IMO be a much more drastic measure.

[QuestionAuthority]

For a couple of years now I have been reading periodic debates where one guy says, “21M Bitcoins will never be enough if the whole world wants to use it.” Then another guy shows up (DnT) and says, “Oh, but Bitcoin is divisible down so many decimals that it will easily fill the need as adoption increases.”

So which is it: Either adoption is never expected to tax the 21m limit so we can afford to knock off decimals, we will have to return to accepting dust payments eventually so may as well just keep using them now or we need to allow a breach of the 21m limit.

No decimals are knocked off.  The minimum value is calculated from the minimum fee.  When the minimum fee goes down (it has gone from 0.01 BTC to 0.0001 BTC while I have been using bitcoin), the size of economically unspendable outputs will decrease as well.  In the future the minimum fee will get calculated dynamically based on which transactions actually make it to the blockchain, and eventually a 0.00000001 BTC output will become standard again.

Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.

I disagree. Pruning valid unspent outputs would IMO be a much more drastic measure.

Can I send a payment for 0.00000001?

[tvbcof]

...
Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.

That's what I though back before...I dunno...a pretty GUI, wallet encryption, multi-sig, etc, etc.  Most importantly, before the system gained a large userbase who relied on it.  Oh well.  Since I lack the skill and interest to actually do anything myself along these lines I can hardly complain.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Can I send a payment for 0.00000001?

Sure as long as you can find a miner willing to include it in a block.  The 0.8.2 change simply sets a DEFAULT min output size.  A miner could reduce it to 0.0000001 if they want to.  They likely won't or if they do will require a much larger tx fee so if you want to pay 0.0001 to send 0.0000001 then go ahead.

Miners have ALWAYS been free to include or not include a tx in the next block.  That was true prior to 0.8.2 and it true after 0.8.2.

[QuestionAuthority]

...
Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.

That's what I though back before...I dunno...a pretty GUI, wallet encryption, multi-sig, etc, etc.  Most importantly, before the system gained a large userbase who relied on it.  Oh well.  Since I lack the skill and interest to actually do anything myself along these lines I can hardly complain.

I guess I'm in the same boat as you. I wouldn’t learn that crappy C++ if God refused the entry to heaven unless I learned it.

I guess I will just resign myself to never running a full node again. I like electrum anyway.

[QuestionAuthority]

Can I send a payment for 0.00000001?

Sure as long as you can find a miner willing to include it in a block.  The 0.8.2 change simply sets a DEFAULT min output size.  A miner could reduce it to 0.0000001 if they want to.  They likely won't or if they do will require a much larger tx fee so if you want to pay 0.0001 to send 0.0000001 then go ahead.

Miners have ALWAYS been free to include or not include a tx in the next block.  That was true prior to 0.8.2 and it true after 0.8.2.

Once the fee increases and mining revenue gets set higher will miners ever want to get less revenue (once Gasoline increases in price will it ever go down  substantially)?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Fees have only gone down since Bitcoin began.  The min mandatory fee for low priority tx was initially 0.01 BTC it has been lowered three times.  If one miner tries to hold out for higher fees, another miner can always make a killing offering to include tx for less.

Still your "concern" has nothing to do with 0.8.2 then.  This has been a characteristic of Bitcoin since the genesis block.  Miners have always been free to exclude tx which has low/no tx fee.  Always.

[QuestionAuthority]

Fees have only gone down since Bitcoin began.  The min mandatory fee for low priority tx was initially 0.01 BTC it has been lowered three times.  If one miner tries to hold out for higher fees, another miner can always make a killing offering to include tx for less.

Still your "concern" has nothing to do with 0.8.2 then.  This has been a characteristic of Bitcoin since the genesis block.  Miners have always been free to exclude tx which has low/no tx fee.  Always.

Oh, well then I don't care. Carry on.

[sturle]

Once the fee increases and mining revenue gets set higher will miners ever want to get less revenue (once Gasoline increases in price will it ever go down  substantially)?

As long as a tx includes a fee – any fee – the first one to mine it will get that fee.  In the future, if the price of BTC increases and as the block reward is reduced, miners will probably mine transactions with lower fees as well.  Even a low fee is extra income to the miner.  First to mine collects it.

There is a small cost related to mining very large blocks (larger risk of getting orphaned), which is the main reason for ignoring transactions with insignificant fees.  There is a small hidden cost related to mining transactions which never will be spent as well, due to the increasing utxo set, so I expect most miners and pools to happily upgrade to 0.8.2 as soon as it is released.

[scintill]

This whole voting thing gets even more ridiculous when you think about this: the entire network is "voting" every day on what the rules are.  The true "will of the people" will be known when this patch hits production.  If a majority like it (or just don't care), it will be in force; otherwise not.

Granted, the above sort of ignores the great power pools wield in these types of things.  But that isn't the developers' fault!  If you care deeply one way or the other, find a pool that agrees with you and support them in some way, and patch/configure your personal client to express your preferences.  That's how you cast your vote, or in this case make sure sub-$0.0059732 transactions are confirmed.

If you don't like the reference client, patch/configure it yourself.  If you can't, I don't think you have any business complaining about such insignificant matters when you're using a first-of-its-kind open-source beta product produced by (mostly) volunteer developers.

[supermono]

How will this affect sites like BitVisitor.com?

[scintill]

How will this affect sites like BitVisitor.com?

Well, here's their last 10 payouts:

Address	Amount (uBTC)	Time
1Amp1tH1cRKaEnakoCMbN33cw8iYyhiqTF	67.2	2013-05-07 00:49:44
19GnfL9gEGCrh7nnaytxCu2BfVyyYwYKVp	16.8	2013-05-07 00:49:43
1HgwnL7ya71HrsH8eNXF6afr7N9XjQL3Ne	17.6	2013-05-07 00:49:43
1F7oPchDoPQCs8uEmBntTNpE1h1CeUuCAQ	32	2013-05-07 00:49:42
1ERsXcPemLZrEaSBEwDV1jmTkDPSRwvT4C	8	2013-05-07 00:49:42
18PZELC6ktLgihFqXoUTKJNQkBBKskiD39	16.8	2013-05-07 00:49:41
1FR4w7PVz4ipJdvY9rUDUKJd2L7jT1Qp3F	32	2013-05-07 00:49:41
1ET1RzJ4zDgyL2pLrgiM3aQDQHpQCSn7R2	8	2013-05-07 00:49:40
1MLrLfxAsNKRvQ6o17wTqfQWD2NXCdWDoD	8.8	2013-05-07 00:49:40
17eNFvTEUdxkxo7gakkrEKmuM7rpxLg5Xn	32	2013-05-07 00:49:40

Current Time: 2013-05-07 01:02:04

An average of 23.92 uBTC, u (micro) = 10^-6, satoshi = 10^-8, converting: 23.92 uBTC = 23.92 * 10^-6 / 10^-8 = 2392 satoshi.  Too small; with this change the average payout (with this limited data) will take a long time to confirm, or never confirm, depending on how high the adoption level of the change is.  Notice in this sample there is one payout that would be large enough.  They may have to raise their payout threshold or find some other way to transfer an average value of $0.0027508 to their users.  I suggest a single coin from whatever the latest Litecoin fork is at the time (that will be an overpayment, but it's nice to err on the side of caution.)

If their advertisers are paying such small amounts they would also have to make a solution to that too.

[virtualmaster]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dt3n8/lets_get_realistic_i_walked_by_a_penny_yesterday/