Bitcoin 0.8.2. What do you think?

[gweedo]

Says todays exchange rate.. tomorrow?? 
This is the issue.

Thats why it's configurable, so if tomorrow you can buy a tank for 1 BTC there is no issue... no need for software updates, just twiddle the knob. (Of course, new versions would twiddle the default too— or make it automatic once someone figures out a secure way of doing that).

So now that your concern has been addressed, will you go back and apologize for drumming up a lot of misplaced hysteria?

No hysteria.

You are trying to soften the blow of regulations being put upon Bitcoin...  You are the guilty party sir.

Stay strong, don't let the dev team try to get into your mind... They are trying to cover up the censorship.

[gmaxwell]

Do you guys do parties?  This performance art is _amazing_.

Gmaxwell: "Thats why it's configurable, so if tomorrow you can buy a tank for 1 BTC there is no issue... no need for software updates, just twiddle the knob. "
bitcoiners: "You are trying to soften the blow of regulations being put upon Bitcoin...  You are the guilty party sir."
Gweedo: "Stay strong, don't let the dev team try to get into your mind... They are trying to cover up the censorship."

cant. stop. giggling.

[gweedo]

Do you guys do parties?  This performance art is _amazing_.

Gmaxwell: "Thats why it's configurable, so if tomorrow you can buy a tank for 1 BTC there is no issue... no need for software updates, just twiddle the knob. "
bitcoiners: "You are trying to soften the blow of regulations being put upon Bitcoin...  You are the guilty party sir."
Gweedo: "Stay strong, don't let the dev team try to get into your mind... They are trying to cover up the censorship."

cant. stop. giggling.

I don't see what is so funny, that the thing I most passionate in my career is going down hill... Did I miss something funny?

[justusranvier]

I don't see what is so funny, that the thing I most passionate in my career is going down hill... Did I miss something funny?

I actually believe you. I just don't think that thing you are most passionate about is Bitcoin.

[gweedo]

I don't see what is so funny, that the thing I most passionate in my career is going down hill... Did I miss something funny?

I actually believe you. I just don't think that thing you are most passionate about is Bitcoin.

I don't know how to prove it, but if you read my threads, I am passionate about it, otherwise I wouldn't care what the devs did.

[scintill]

You are trying to soften the blow of regulations being put upon Bitcoin...  You are the guilty party sir.

You realize there are already regulations, right?  Like only 8 decimal places worth of value, 1MB blocksize limit, the script language is not Turing-complete.  Oh, but those were put in by Satoshi, so they're automatically alright?  I swear, Satoshi being absent makes him some mythical god-like figure who did everything right, but now the dev team are viewed as either conspiring with the feds or just bumbling idiots.

Do you people even read the descriptions of these changes?  Right now it's possible to receive amounts so small that "it costs more in fees tha[n] they are worth" to spend them.  Who in their right mind thinks this is a desirable property for the system to retain?  Furthermore, the change in question makes these types of things more configurable than they were before.  When you're informed, the idea that this change is shoving some agenda down the network's throat is absurd.

Lobby to get the fee structure modified so that 1-satoshi outputs are economical (not an idea I support, but I haven't heard rational arguments for it either), or for some way to re-package dust outputs into something usable on the network, or to get a pool to support your favorite settings.  I don't really care, but at least do something that makes you look like you understand how things work and are willing to do more than whine and sling mud at mostly-volunteer developers.

[5120-01-518-6126]

What about adding a command that is the mirror image of sendmany, so you could consolidate however many receipts of of nano-coins (or any amount) into a single transaction you can only send to yourself and pay a fee based on the total amount?  Controls could be put in place for a minimum total for a consolidation (say 0.01 BTC) and protection against "double-send" by an appropriate confirmation number.

[DeathAndTaxes]

There's a difference between micro payments of $0.10 or $1 or something, and $0.00005. The former is good, the latter not.

Says todays exchange rate.. tomorrow?? 

This is the issue.

Then the dust threshold is reduced.  The min tx fee for low priority tx was at one time 0.01 BTC (~$1.20 today) and it has been reduced twice.

There ALREADY are rules in clients on what tx are relayed.  This is simply changing the rules to one which better aligns the cost of creating outputs which will remain in the UXTO forever, something current anti-spam rules do not do.

[justusranvier]

This is simply changing the rules to one which better aligns the cost of creating outputs which will remain in the UXTO forever, something current anti-spam rules do not do.

Don't forget the very important feature of making the new rules user configurable instead of hard coded.

[sturle]

The majority is speaking... too bad Gavin is sold out to the FEDS.  He has no interest in what the majority wants.

Hmm.  The majority among those who are voting seems to think it is a good idea.  I only see a couple of very loud voces speaking against this change, and none of them have demonstrated the slightest understanding of it.  I haven't seen a single developer speak against the change.  Gavin is one of many.  Those who were given more mouth than brains seems to overlook this fact as well.

[gweedo]

The majority among those who are voting seems to think it is a good idea.

It's a good idea    39 (24.2%)
It's a good idea, But not at 5430 Satoshi    9 (5.6%)
It's a bad idea    57 (35.4%)
It's a bad idea, It should be a lower # of btc    1 (0.6%)
It's a temporary fix that should adjust with price    19 (11.8%)
It's a temporary fix that should be revised later    36 (22.4%)
Total Voters: 161


35% think it is bad, so yeah not majority LOL try and look at the facts when they are infront of your face.

[scintill]

The majority among those who are voting seems to think it is a good idea.

It's a good idea    39 (24.2%)
It's a good idea, But not at 5430 Satoshi    9 (5.6%)
It's a bad idea    57 (35.4%)
It's a bad idea, It should be a lower # of btc    1 (0.6%)
It's a temporary fix that should adjust with price    19 (11.8%)
It's a temporary fix that should be revised later    36 (22.4%)
Total Voters: 161


35% think it is bad, so yeah not majority LOL try and look at the facts when they are infront of your face.

Add up multiple categories.  The people who are not absolutely opposed, in other words generally support, outnumber those who oppose.  Are you cherry-picking the "temporary fix" folks onto your side or something?  The wording of that choice obviously means it is acceptable to them as it stands.

I'm curious if you have a response to "I only see a couple of very loud voces speaking against this change, and none of them have demonstrated the slightest understanding of it."  I agree wholeheartedly.  If you have an objection based on an understanding, please let it be known.  All I've seen is your claim that small transactions are not hurting the network and that developers are greedy  (WTF? what do they have to gain from this?)

Gavin says the point of the pull request is "to discourage people from bloating users' wallets and the UTXO set with tiny outputs."  In other words, small transactions are harmful.  Do you have an explanation for why this assessment is incorrect, or do you just inherently distrust Gavin because he's one of the "fat cats" at the top, conspiring to drive Bitcoin into the ground?

[sturle]

I don't care what you think.  This is regulation plain and simple.  This is not what I was led to believe bitcoin was.  If bitcoin can't handle itself then another coin should take it's place.  END OF STORY.

Why didn't you complain when 0.00000000 outputs were made non-standard in the same way some versions ago?  Same problem, same reason to make them non-standard.  Spendable, but only in theory because it doesn't make sense to pay fees to spend them.  You can still send the transactions, and evil miners may mine them just like other dust creating transactions.  I don't want them in the blockchain, so I won't help you relaying or mining them.  That's my choice.  You can't force me to, just as I can't force you to stop behaving badly.

[gweedo]

The majority among those who are voting seems to think it is a good idea.

It's a good idea    39 (24.2%)
It's a good idea, But not at 5430 Satoshi    9 (5.6%)
It's a bad idea    57 (35.4%)
It's a bad idea, It should be a lower # of btc    1 (0.6%)
It's a temporary fix that should adjust with price    19 (11.8%)
It's a temporary fix that should be revised later    36 (22.4%)
Total Voters: 161


35% think it is bad, so yeah not majority LOL try and look at the facts when they are infront of your face.

Add up multiple categories.  The people who are not absolutely opposed, in other words generally support, outnumber those who oppose.  Are you cherry-picking the "temporary fix" folks onto your side or something?  The wording of that choice obviously means it is acceptable to them as it stands.

I'm curious if you have a response to "I only see a couple of very loud voces speaking against this change, and none of them have demonstrated the slightest understanding of it."  I agree wholeheartedly.  If you have an objection based on an understanding, please let it be known.  All I've seen is your claim that small transactions are not hurting the network and that developers are greedy  (WTF? what do they have to gain from this?)

Gavin says the point of the pull request is "to discourage people from bloating users' wallets and the UTXO set with tiny outputs."  In other words, small transactions are harmful.  Do you have an explanation for why this assessment is incorrect, or do you just inherently distrust Gavin because he's one of the "fat cats" at the top, conspiring to drive Bitcoin into the ground?

First off I only care about that "It's a bad idea    57 (35.4%)" it is the majority I don't care about the rest. So you add them six ways to sunday, and skew the results how you want but that is the majority.

Second no cause I actually understand completely what they are doing, and I never said the developers were greedy, I said Gavin was greedy. They are censoring bitcoin, if I want to send 0.00000001 regardless of fees or whatever, I should be able too. Also they are doing this out of a vendetta against satoshi dice which any business is killed by censorship is completely against what bitcoin is. I made this clearly in about 2 different threads.

Third, if you don't have the Hard disk to run a full node maybe you shouldn't? there are other options. So that doesn't harm bitcoin, it harms people who aren't update with there computers. It is really a fix for something the developers should be working on, instead of putting a temp patch on.

[gweedo]

I don't care what you think.  This is regulation plain and simple.  This is not what I was led to believe bitcoin was.  If bitcoin can't handle itself then another coin should take it's place.  END OF STORY.

Why didn't you complain when 0.00000000 outputs were made non-standard in the same way some versions ago?  Same problem, same reason to make them non-standard.  Spendable, but only in theory because it doesn't make sense to pay fees to spend them.  You can still send the transactions, and evil miners may mine them just like other dust creating transactions.  I don't want them in the blockchain, so I won't help you relaying or mining them.  That's my choice.  You can't force me to, just as I can't force you to stop behaving badly.

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.

[sturle]

The majority among those who are voting seems to think it is a good idea.

It's a good idea    39 (24.2%)
It's a good idea, But not at 5430 Satoshi    9 (5.6%)
It's a temporary fix that should adjust with price    19 (11.8%)
It's a temporary fix that should be revised later    36 (22.4%)
It's a bad idea    57 (35.4%)
It's a bad idea, It should be a lower # of btc    1 (0.6%)

Total Voters: 161

35% think it is bad, so yeah not majority LOL try and look at the facts when they are infront of your face.

Sorted the list.

36% think it is bad, and 59% agrees perfectly with the change.  (The number will be adjusted with the price of a transaction, and yes it will be revised when the automatic txfee market is done, so both agree.)  0.6% thinks the limit should be lower, and 5.6% thinks it should be higher than 5430 Satoshi.  In total 64% thinks it is a good idea.  A large majority.

[gweedo]

The majority among those who are voting seems to think it is a good idea.

It's a good idea    39 (24.2%)
It's a good idea, But not at 5430 Satoshi    9 (5.6%)
It's a temporary fix that should adjust with price    19 (11.8%)
It's a temporary fix that should be revised later    36 (22.4%)
It's a bad idea    57 (35.4%)
It's a bad idea, It should be a lower # of btc    1 (0.6%)

Total Voters: 161

35% think it is bad, so yeah not majority LOL try and look at the facts when they are infront of your face.

Sorted the list.

36% think it is bad, and 59% agrees perfectly with the change.  (The number will be adjusted with the price of a transaction, and yes it will be revised when the automatic txfee market is done, so both agree.)  0.6% thinks the limit should be lower, and 5.6% thinks it should be higher than 5430 Satoshi.  In total 64% thinks it is a good idea.  A large majority.

Thanks for skewing the results of the poll to fit your need. You know there companies that pay big bucks for that

[scintill]

First off I only care about that "It's a bad idea    57 (35.4%)" it is the majority I don't care about the rest. So you add them six ways to sunday, and skew the results how you want but that is the majority.

LOL, you accuse me of skewing.  You can care about whatever you want, but it's an outright lie to represent "It's a bad idea [forever]" as winning over the current combination majority who are, at this very moment in current conditions, collectively in favor.  Not that a vote holds any sway over what the development team of an open-source project has to do.

Oh, just Gavin's greedy.  Sounds just as ridiculous as the whole team being greedy, so my point stands.  Having a vendetta against Satoshi Dice is not the same as being greedy, even if such a vendetta is the reason for this change.  By Satoshi Dice's own estimation, the increase to their costs is so tiny it's laughable to say this will kill them.  They might have to pay 430 extra satoshi, a whopping $0.0005074 at current prices.

They are censoring bitcoin, if I want to send 0.00000001 regardless of fees or whatever, I should be able too.

You will still be able to do this.  You just have to find nodes to relay and mine the transaction for you, just like you do today.  The default settings are just making it harder.  Since you're willing to pay any fees, please contact a pool op and make a deal to ensure your transaction is mined.

[gweedo]

First off I only care about that "It's a bad idea    57 (35.4%)" it is the majority I don't care about the rest. So you add them six ways to sunday, and skew the results how you want but that is the majority.

LOL, you accuse me of skewing.  You can care about whatever you want, but it's an outright lie to represent "It's a bad idea [forever]" as winning over the current combination majority who are, at this very moment in current conditions, collectively in favor.  Not that a vote holds any sway over what the development team of an open-source project has to do.

Oh, just Gavin's greedy.  Sounds just as ridiculous as the whole team being greedy, so my point stands.  Having a vendetta against Satoshi Dice is not the same as being greedy, even if such a vendetta is the reason for this change.  By Satoshi Dice's own estimation, the increase to their costs is so tiny it's laughable to say this will kill them.  They might have to pay 430 extra satoshi, a whopping $0.0005074 at current prices.

They are censoring bitcoin, if I want to send 0.00000001 regardless of fees or whatever, I should be able too.

You will still be able to do this.  You just have to find nodes to relay and mine the transaction for you, just like you do today.  The default settings are just making it harder.  Since you're willing to pay any fees, please contact a pool op and make a deal to ensure your transaction is mined.

You read nothing I posted, I am done with you, cause you just talking about what you want too. Yes Majority is no one wants it, sorry you think skewing it will trick anybody into saying your right, which no one has.

[sturle]

Yes Majority is no one wants it, sorry you think skewing it will trick anybody into saying your right, which no one has.

Thank you for making me press the ignore button.