Version 0.3.18

[satoshi]

Changes:
- Fixed a wallet.dat compatibility problem if you downgraded from 0.3.17 and then upgraded again
- IsStandard() check to only include known transaction types in blocks
- Jgarzik's optimisation to speed up the initial block download a little

The main addition in this release is the Accounts-Based JSON-RPC commands that Gavin's been working on (more details at http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1886.0).  
- getaccountaddress
- sendfrom
- move
- getbalance
- listtransactions

Download:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.18/

[RHorning]

This is the first update to Bitcion that I'm not jumping on and grabbing right away, because I think the choice of checking transaction types in blocks is not necessarily a good thing... at least while the question is undecided in the community.  It does impact the network but in a subtle and political way.

At the very least I wish that Satoshi would at least express his view on what he thinks about putting extra data into transactions beyond pure financial data into transactions, and I think this is only going to start an arms race for those who want to play with scripts and those who are trying to keep scripts "pure".  All that has happened here is to simply lay the gauntlet down to get past the "IsStandard()" check and find transactions which can pass that test but still contain other data.

[theymos]

At the very least I wish that Satoshi would at least express his view on what he thinks about putting extra data into transactions beyond pure financial data into transactions, and I think this is only going to start an arms race for those who want to play with scripts and those who are trying to keep scripts "pure".  All that has happened here is to simply lay the gauntlet down to get past the "IsStandard()" check and find transactions which can pass that test but still contain other data.

Yeah; it's pretty pointless. Why on Earth would any miner adopt this change, when it means that they will be getting fewer transaction fees due to the lost non-standard transactions?

[theymos]

ArtForz (15+% of the network), tcatm (2Ghash/s), and doublec (pool maintainer) have stated that they will not use IsStandard. Non-standard transactions will therefore still be possible.

When I have time, I will produce a patch for Bitcoin that will remove all non-network-enforced restrictions on transactions, so that other miners can easily also be configured to include these transactions.

[Cdecker]

I guess we have the first official release that is disputed by the majority of computation power, Bitcoin's coming off age :-)

I do however like that the changes are communicated in an open and unbiased way. One thing that would be nice is to have links to the particular Threads, Checkins, whatever to be able to track/understand changes more easily.

[jgarzik]

Please start your own block chain, rather than forking the network like this.

I hope it is clear the havoc that your push to include non-currency data is causing.

[nelisky]

Please start your own block chain, rather than forking the network like this.

I hope it is clear the havoc that your push to include non-currency data is causing.

Wrong thread?

[Gavin Andresen]

Yeah; it's pretty pointless. Why on Earth would any miner adopt this change, when it means that they will be getting fewer transaction fees due to the lost non-standard transactions?

There's been exactly one block with non-standard transactions:
  http://blockexplorer.com/b/71036
... and it contained no fees.

HOWEVER:  jgarzik, you're over-reacting, too.  This will not cause a block chain split; all clients will accept blocks containing non-standard transactions as valid.  Most (many?) just won't put non-standard transactions in blocks that they generate, and won't relay them.  There will be no havoc.

[jgarzik]

HOWEVER:  jgarzik, you're over-reacting, too.  This will not cause a block chain split; all clients will accept blocks containing non-standard transactions as valid.  Most (many?) just won't put non-standard transactions in blocks that they generate, and won't relay them.  There will be no havoc.

I never said it would cause a block chain split.  It's more fundamental: a rules split.

Forking the network implied a majority of miners not running mainline bitcoin transaction rules.  theymos appears to be drawing a line in the sand, where he wants to convince most miners to stop paying attention to mainline bitcoin transaction validation rules.  He's free to do that.  And miners are free to validate what they want to.

But this sort of split will make it more difficult to work on the network in the future, and de facto, opens the door to larding down the block chain with all sorts of non-currency-related data as being discussed in other threads.

[RHorning]

HOWEVER:  jgarzik, you're over-reacting, too.  This will not cause a block chain split; all clients will accept blocks containing non-standard transactions as valid.  Most (many?) just won't put non-standard transactions in blocks that they generate, and won't relay them.  There will be no havoc.

No, this isn't going to cause a block chain split, it is going to cause a fork of Bitcoin.  I just hope that is thought through very well, and I don't think it has been.

Since transactions aren't being forwarded that fail the IsStandard() algorithm, those who want to put "non-standard" transactions into a bitcoin chain must either hard-connect to a miner who would accept these transactions or force some sort of ad-hoc way of setting up a second tier in the network to find nodes that will accept these kind of transactions AND likely put them into a future block.

That only one block may fail at the moment with this test is ignoring the current discussion where conceivably almost every block in the near future may have some form of these "non-standard" transactions.

[slush]

Please start your own block chain, rather than forking the network like this.
I hope it is clear the havoc that your push to include non-currency data is causing.

Agree. I don't see any reason why non standard, maybe non-financial transaction should be inside financial block chain. Also don't understand why major miners are going to fork client. I thought this software is about currency. So I'm absolutely OK with last release and I already updated all my miners.

I'm definitely NOT against software based on chains and personally will support any BitDNS effort, but, please, keep bitcoin chain consistent.

[da2ce7]

Transaction fees will pay for the generation of the chain in the future, therefore if the BitDNS guys (or any other group) want to include carefully crafted transactions in the chain, then they must include the appropriate compensation for the generators, or likely their transactions will be dropped.

Even later in the future, those who include extra things without compensation in their blocks will get their blocks orphaned by the chain.

I for one will upgrade my client to v.18 until their come a time when it is profitable for me to accept non-standard transactions.

[jgarzik]

Transaction fees will pay for the generation of the chain in the future, therefore if the BitDNS guys (or any other group) want to include carefully crafted transactions in the chain, then they must include the appropriate compensation for the generators, or likely their transactions will be dropped.

That will disadvantage people who use bitcoins for reasons unrelated to storing data in the block chain -- ie. as cash as intended -- because the "appropriate compensation" will prioritize their non-currency transactions over currency transactions.

[jib]

That will disadvantage people who use bitcoins for reasons unrelated to storing data in the block chain -- ie. as cash as intended -- because the "appropriate compensation" will prioritize their non-currency transactions over currency transactions.

No, it'll disadvantage people who refuse to pay fees. What they're storing in their transactions is irrelevant.

[da2ce7]

That will disadvantage people who use bitcoins for reasons unrelated to storing data in the block chain -- ie. as cash as intended -- because the "appropriate compensation" will prioritize their non-currency transactions over currency transactions.

No problem with that! It will increase the competitive nature of generation, making Bitcoin harder to attack, and encouraging improvements to the generation network to support more transactions (to maximize profit).

You've gotta love the free market!

[jgarzik]

No, it'll disadvantage people who refuse to pay fees.

Rather, it will increase everybody's fees, and incentivize creation of a currency-only chain without all the data spam.

[Judson]

I applaude this decision.

Why would anyone want to muddle up their nice distributed currency system, free from complex regulation from governments, and add a DNS system on top of it? How hard would that be to explain to someone's mom, who (conceivably), could be using Bitcoin in the future?

There is plenty of transaction fees to be had when bitcoin builds a larger user base. We don't need non-standard transactions to make mining worthwhile

The simpler Bitcoin stays, the better IMO.

[da2ce7]

Rather, it will increase everybody's fees, and incentivize creation of a currency-only chain without all the data spam.

No, as no generators will want to block fee paying (profitable) transactions.

When adding non-currency data into the block chain becomes common, then the there will become a strong economic incentive to increase the block size as necessary. Thus keeping the transaction cost down.

In the long run, extra data in the chain will _reduce_ the relative cost of a currency-only transaction, because the currency-only transaction uses much less data, compared to the data transactions, per transaction.

[jgarzik]

Rather, it will increase everybody's fees, and incentivize creation of a currency-only chain without all the data spam.

No, as no generators will want to block fee paying (profitable) transactions.

When adding non-currency data into the block chain becomes common, then the there will become a strong economic incentive to increase the block size as necessary. Thus keeping the transaction cost down.

Currency transactions would have to fight harder -- pay more fees -- to make sure they're processed in a timely fashion, due to all the non-currency data in the block chain.  Increasing the block size does not reduce transaction fees.

[da2ce7]

Currency transactions would have to fight harder -- pay more fees -- to make sure they're processed in a timely fashion, due to all the non-currency data in the block chain.  Increasing the block size does not reduce transaction fees.

Sorry I have to disagree with you,  the transaction fees are based upon the 'cost' to generator to include the transaction.  The cost is directly related to the amount of data needed to be included.

In the future there will be no 'hard limits' on block size, only the risk that the block will be rejected and orphaned by the chain as it is to large.

When a generator deciding what transactions to include, if the network is already profitable with very large blocks, (eg. 20mb+ as they have much non-currency data in them), then including very small 'currency' transactions have a minute cost. For example, 20,000,000 vs 20,000,010.

If the block chain is restricted to just currency data, there is much less incentive to improve the efficiency of handling large blocks data.  Therefore the relative cost will be much greater... 500,000 vs 500,010. Therefore the transaction fees required for small amounts of data are likely to be higher on a system that only induces currency data.