Why is 0.00000001 BTC "too small" with Bitcoin QT?

[BittBurger]

Bitcoin still has these really strange (to me) elements that I can't get straight in my head.
Im trying to send a very small amount to a wallet to do some testing before I send a slightly larger amount.
But apparently despite everything I've been telling people for nearly a year, no, you can't send 0.00000001 BTC to someone.
Bitcoin QT won't let me.  Can someone explain why?
Is this (like fixing the fee structure for sending) yet another thing the Dev team hasn't addressed yet?

-B-

[olloman]

I'm no expert, but as far as I know right now you can't make transactions lower than a certain amount of mbs, and 0.00000001 btc would be lower than the minimum amount required

[HorseCoin]

it works on blockchain.info try that site 

[Barek]

- snip -
0.8.2 Release notes

Fee Policy changes

The default fee for low-priority transactions is lowered from 0.0005 BTC
(for each 1,000 bytes in the transaction; an average transaction is
about 500 bytes) to 0.0001 BTC.

Payments (transaction outputs) of 0.543 times the minimum relay fee
(0.00005430 BTC) are now considered 'non-standard', because storing them
costs the network more than they are worth and spending them will usually
cost their owner more in transaction fees than they are worth.

Non-standard transactions are not relayed across the network, are not included
in blocks by most miners, and will not show up in your wallet until they are
included in a block.
- snip -

[whtchocla7e]

it works on blockchain.info try that site 

yeah, give your private key to some random website.

naw, fix them dam wallets instead...

[guybrushthreepwood]

it works on blockchain.info try that site 

yeah, give your private key to some random website.

naw, fix them dam wallets instead...

Or pay the fee or send a higher amount.

[BittBurger]

Or fix the wallet.

Thanks Barek.

-B-

[guybrushthreepwood]

Or fix the wallet.

Thanks Barek.

-B-

What needs fixing exactly? I don't think miners should have to process such a worthless transaction without a fee.

[Barek]

What needs fixing exactly? I don't think miners should have to process such a worthless transaction without a fee.

This limitation is quite deliberate. It makes flooding the network with tons of transactions much more expensive.

[whtchocla7e]

Or fix the wallet.

Thanks Barek.

-B-

What needs fixing exactly? I don't think miners should have to process such a worthless transaction without a fee.

What exactly is a worthless transaction?

What if one day the lowest BTC unit is equal in value to $1?

Then, we have a $%##% problem. The whole world will come to a stand-still because no transaction is going to get processed..

[Holliday]

Or fix the wallet.

Thanks Barek.

-B-

What needs fixing exactly? I don't think miners should have to process such a worthless transaction without a fee.

What exactly is a worthless transaction?

What if one day the lowest BTC unit is equal in value to $1?

Then, we have a $%##% problem. The whole world will come to a stand-still because no transaction is going to get processed..

It can be adjusted to better fit actual circumstances.

[RodeoX]

Or fix the wallet.

Thanks Barek.

-B-

What needs fixing exactly? I don't think miners should have to process such a worthless transaction without a fee.

What exactly is a worthless transaction?

What if one day the lowest BTC unit is equal in value to $1?

Then, we have a $%##% problem. The whole world will come to a stand-still because no transaction is going to get processed..

It will be changed if the price rises. But suppose I create 10,000 transactions a minute at that amount. I could tie up the network with unproductive transactions that cost the network. A sort of DoS attack. I think that's the reason.    

[DannyHamilton]

This discussion again?

Seriously?

The 10,000 other times that I've seen discussions on bitcointalk about transaction fees and spammy dust weren't enough to settle the matter?

Somehow this particular discussion will have a different result than all the other discussions?  Highly unlikely.

[guybrushthreepwood]

Or fix the wallet.

Thanks Barek.

-B-

What needs fixing exactly? I don't think miners should have to process such a worthless transaction without a fee.

What exactly is a worthless transaction?

What if one day the lowest BTC unit is equal in value to $1?

Then, we have a $%##% problem. The whole world will come to a stand-still because no transaction is going to get processed..

The transaction fees will and are adjusted accordingly.

What needs fixing exactly? I don't think miners should have to process such a worthless transaction without a fee.

This limitation is quite deliberate. It makes flooding the network with tons of transactions much more expensive.

This is why it's a good idea. Why would anyone want or need to send the tinest fraction of a Bitcoin? And if you did, you should have to pay a fee.

[DannyHamilton]

Bitcoin still has these really strange (to me) elements that I can't get straight in my head.
Im trying to send a very small amount to a wallet to do some testing before I send a slightly larger amount.
But apparently despite everything I've been telling people for nearly a year, no, you can't send 0.00000001 BTC to someone.
Bitcoin QT won't let me.  Can someone explain why?
Is this (like fixing the fee structure for sending) yet another thing the Dev team hasn't addressed yet?

-B-

If you want to send a transaction with an output less than 0.00005430 BTC, you can do it with raw transactions.  If you don't want to do that, you can hire someone to modify your client for you.  It is open source, and nobody except you can decide what your client can and can't do.  Of course, that's true of everyone else too.  You can't force me to relay your spammy dust transaction if I don't want to.

Since most of the network has chosen to run clients that won't relay your spammy dust transaction, you'll have a difficult time getting the transaction sent out onto the network.  However, if you can find a miner (or mining pool) that is willing to confirm such transactions into the blocks that they create, then you can send the transaction directly to that miner.  Once it is in a block, the rest of the network will acknowledge it.

I'm not sure why a miner would want to confirm your spammy dust transaction instead of a more useful transaction of another user.  Especially if that other user is willing to pay the miner for the service (transaction fees).

Nothing in the protocol is preventing you from creating the transaction or getting it confirmed.  Your peers just don't want to cooperate with your plans.  Perhaps you need to find some better peers.  Try checking out some of the other alt-coins.  I'm sure you'll find one willing to relay spammy dust transactions.

[vpitcher07]

it works on blockchain.info try that site 

yeah, give your private key to some random website.

naw, fix them dam wallets instead...

You do not give your private key to blockchain.info when you access your wallet. They do not have your private key, you store it locally.

[Meuh6879]

Please ... talk in mBTC. 

0,00000001 = 0,00001mBTC

it's useless for a transaction, sorry ... in Euro, you can't money less than 0,01 Euros.

[splashdash]

mBTC is the way to go, i think its rather pointless to send any less.

[DannyHamilton]

You do not give your private key to blockchain.info when you access your wallet. They do not have your private key, you store it locally.

This is not entirely true.

You encrypt your private key locally with your password, and then you send your encrypted private key to blockchain.info.

This is why you can access your wallet from multiple computers.  When you log into your wallet on their website, they send down the encrypted private key from their database, and then that private key is decrytped locally using your password.

Of course, this can make it very dangerous to access your blockchain wallet if you are at a public computer (since the computer could have malware that records your password and captures your private key).

[dissident]

what do you need to go around sending one cent for? I think they should get rid of the cent in the US and round to the nickel.... and round to nearest 50 cents in bitcoin to get rid of worthless 'advertising' spam transactions. Stop whining.