Confusing default options with Bitcoin Core 0.9

[orrd]

I uninstalled my previous Bitcoin QT version and installed this one and used the "Reset Options" button.

But the "pay transaction fee" amount is still 0.00000000.  Isn't that supposed to default to 0.00001? 

Also, "spend unconfirmed change (experts only)" apparently defaults to checked.  That's confusing.  If it's for "experts only", why is it checked by default?

[MicroGuy]

The receive window seems a little clunky to me with "all fields optional" and strange logic flow.

It also has a little added terror with that "not recommended" check box. Quite strange overall. It's almost as if someone was trying to think of ways to make the client more complicated, confusing, and scary.

Satoshi is probably rolling over in his grave.

[Foxpup]

But the "pay transaction fee" amount is still 0.00000000.  Isn't that supposed to default to 0.00001?  

No. The default transaction fee (for high-priority transactions) is, and always has been, zero, though a higher fee is recommended for faster confirmation. A fee of BTC0.0001 per kB is required for low-priority transactions only, but this cannot be set from the options menu as it can cause transactions to be stuck if it is set too low.

Also, "spend unconfirmed change (experts only)" apparently defaults to checked.  That's confusing.  If it's for "experts only", why is it checked by default?

Because non-experts may be confused if they uncheck it, as it will cause the balance to be displayed inconsistently when there are unconfirmed spends.

[franky1]

i agree with Microguy

it was Luke Jr's little brain fart months ago where he tried forcing people to have new addresses by default. all to get lots of dust spread across different addresses, adding more Vin data to a transaction so he can get more income from data heavy transaction fee's

the new address feature is ok for merchants. but then again merchants are not going to use the GUI.. so again pointless.. whether the coins are in 1 address or 20 addresses is no better or worse security. because stealing the wallet.dat gives thieves both 1 or 20 privkeys, in one theft.

there is no benefit to defaulting the client to having new addresses. it is just to boost transaction fee's by adding data to new transactions. and also goes hand in hand with Luke Jr's mining pool code to only allow a small percentage of fee-free transactions from non virgin addresses per block.

greed is ruining bitcoin. bitcoin meant to be open and unrestricted on how people send and receive funds. where the protocol SHOULD only be to secure funds against double spends or altering the blockchain. never to mess with how people transact.

25btc per 10 minutes is enough for miners. if the dollar price of their little share is not adequate. then they should not be messing around with clients to subsidize their payments. but they should instead, not be so impatient to sell their shares of the 25btc so quickly at a low price but to hold out for a price rise (causing a demand by holding. rather then a oversupply by instant selling)

[Foxpup]

it was Luke Jr's little brain fart months ago where he tried forcing people to have new addresses by default. all to get lots of dust spread across different addresses, adding more Vin data to a transaction so he can get more income from data heavy transaction fee's

Multiple inputs from different addresses does not increase the data requirements any more than multiple inputs from the same address.

there is no benefit to defaulting the client to having new addresses.

Except for increasing financial privacy by limiting the number of addresses that can associated with your identity.

greed is ruining bitcoin. bitcoin meant to be open and unrestricted on how people send and receive funds. where the protocol SHOULD only be to secure funds against double spends or altering the blockchain. never to mess with how people transact.

The protocol does not mess with how people transact.

25btc per 10 minutes is enough for miners.

Clearly not, if they refuse to confirm transactions without sufficient fees. Remember, the more transactions (and hence more data) are in a block, the higher the orphan rate (each orphan costs the miner the entire BTC25 subsidy), and miners expect to compensated for that lost income.

then they should not be messing around with clients to subsidize their payments.

Miners have no control over what client people use.

but they should instead, not be so impatient to sell their shares of the 25btc so quickly at a low price but to hold out for a price rise (causing a demand by holding. rather then a oversupply by instant selling)

So let me get this straight, you want no fees, and no inflation? You just want everything for free? Well, why don't you go and create your own altcoin where everything is free and let me know how that works out, 'kay?

[orrd]

Also, "spend unconfirmed change (experts only)" apparently defaults to checked.  That's confusing.  If it's for "experts only", why is it checked by default?

Because non-experts may be confused if they uncheck it, as it will cause the balance to be displayed inconsistently when there are unconfirmed spends.

So, just to clarify, their intention was that most users should leave it checked?  That's the opposite of what putting "(experts only)" in the label would seem to imply.

If that was their intention, they should just change the text from "(experts only)" to "(recommended)".  Saying "experts only" implies that you should have it unchecked.  Saying "recommended" implies that you should keep it checked.  

That would be far more clear and not so confusing and jarring to users who see this strange setting checked with a warning next to it that seems to be saying they shouldn't be using that setting.

[Foxpup]

So, just to clarify, their intention was that most users should leave it checked?  That's the opposite of what putting "(experts only)" in the label would seem to imply.

If that was their intention, they should just change the text from "(experts only)" to "(recommended)".  Saying "experts only" implies that you should have it unchecked.  Saying "recommended" implies that you should keep it checked.  

That would be far more clear and not so confusing and jarring to users who see this strange setting checked with a warning next to it that seems to be saying they shouldn't be using that setting.

True, but user-friendliness has never been a high priority for Bitcoin-Qt.

[engiejim]

The receive window seems a little clunky to me with "all fields optional" and strange logic flow.

It also has a little added terror with that "not recommended" check box. Quite strange overall. It's almost as if someone was trying to think of ways to make the client more complicated, confusing, and scary.

Satoshi is probably rolling over in his grave.

They should make the part that says "Spend unconfirmed change" to "Don't spend unconfirmed change"  and make the box unchecked by default.
Or even easier like orrd Newbie said,
Change the part that says "(experts only)"  to "(recommended)".

That's my BTC 0.02 worth 

Also, How can he be dead?  I thought Satoshi was AI.

[S4VV4S]

The receive window seems a little clunky to me with "all fields optional" and strange logic flow.

It also has a little added terror with that "not recommended" check box. Quite strange overall. It's almost as if someone was trying to think of ways to make the client more complicated, confusing, and scary.

Satoshi is probably rolling over in his grave.

They should make the part that says "Spend unconfirmed change" to "Don't spend unconfirmed change"  and make the box unchecked by default.
Or even easier like orrd Newbie said,
Change the part that says "(experts only)"  to "(recommended)".

That's my BTC 0.02 worth 

Also, How can he be dead?  I thought Satoshi was AI.