I don't get what the big fuss is bout. Why not just use an alt currency?
Some of the altcoins, like litecoin, have extreme fees on microtransactions. Just another way to solve the problem. 
Topic: Bitcoin 0.8.2. What do you think? (Read 17172 times)
I don't get what the big fuss is bout. Why not just use an alt currency?
Quote
All you need to do is change your config file. It's not too difficult. I'd suggest that you develop your own client but changing the config file of 8.2 would be simpler. Your "problem" is solved.
If Bitcoin is going to become mainstream, then this is a bad idea. We need to understand the vast majority of new users will just accept the default configuration. It is unrealistic to expect anything else.
drawing its value from a series of calculations that determine, from difficulty, transactions etc. how much 1BTC is worth
Clearly you have not idea what decentralized currency means, look it up some time, 1 BTC will always be worth 1 BTC, it isn't tied to any one currency. This bring into another issue, how do we tell people that to think of bitcoin as bitcoin, and not as storage for dollars or yen. I mean 1BTC == 1BTC regardless of the trading.
But that is cause the free market deems that as the value. 1BTC value can't be gotten from how many are mine or how much the difficulty is. That is your flaw in your thinking, you think that some meaning full value comes about cause of the difficultly or how many are out there, in reality it is the free markets that deem bitcoin is the ~$100.
I stopped short of giving an outright formula because I don't know how to translate this data into free market value. Clearly a 10x increase in difficulty won't be a 10x increase in value, but somebody's gotta figure it out. I support a dynamic transfer limit, and the only way BTC can figure out where to set that limit is from within its own statistics. Exactly how it would do this I do not know, but it stores a LOT of data, it can make many statistics out of this data, and interpreted in the right way, it might work.
You can for example, take a random country, of which you know nothing except for the fact that a say 80% of the transactions happening everywhere are worth around 100000 units of currency, 12% are 10000000 units, and 4% are 100000000000, and you can pretty much get an idea that that currency is most likely hyperinflated and the value of a single unit is likely nonimportant. You don't even have to know what the transactions are buying/selling.
Statistics is a flawed math system, when it comes to these types of random variables. You can't accurately predict the free market, and include that information in the blockchain. Who even knows if those people using bitcoins even take into consideration that they are pinning it to another currency. Maybe they are saying 1BTC is worth on it's own, without another currency, 3 bags of rice. You can't predict what transactions are being pinned to a currency and not, and if you did pin bitcoin protocol to another currency, then you are saying that bitcoin is indeed a medium of transfer not a currency.
drawing its value from a series of calculations that determine, from difficulty, transactions etc. how much 1BTC is worth
Clearly you have not idea what decentralized currency means, look it up some time, 1 BTC will always be worth 1 BTC, it isn't tied to any one currency. This bring into another issue, how do we tell people that to think of bitcoin as bitcoin, and not as storage for dollars or yen. I mean 1BTC == 1BTC regardless of the trading.
But that is cause the free market deems that as the value. 1BTC value can't be gotten from how many are mine or how much the difficulty is. That is your flaw in your thinking, you think that some meaning full value comes about cause of the difficultly or how many are out there, in reality it is the free markets that deem bitcoin is the ~$100.
I stopped short of giving an outright formula because I don't know how to translate this data into free market value. Clearly a 10x increase in difficulty won't be a 10x increase in value, but somebody's gotta figure it out. I support a dynamic transfer limit, and the only way BTC can figure out where to set that limit is from within its own statistics. Exactly how it would do this I do not know, but it stores a LOT of data, it can make many statistics out of this data, and interpreted in the right way, it might work.
You can for example, take a random country, of which you know nothing except for the fact that a say 80% of the transactions happening everywhere are worth around 100000 units of currency, 12% are 10000000 units, and 4% are 100000000000, and you can pretty much get an idea that that currency is most likely hyperinflated and the value of a single unit is likely nonimportant. You don't even have to know what the transactions are buying/selling.
I think a dust-proof limit should be implemented, but should be dynamic in nature, drawing its value from a series of calculations that determine, from difficulty, transactions etc. how much 1BTC is worth and what amount is trivial. A hard limit is a very bad idea, considering bitcoin's climbing value and difficulty. A few years from now 5k satoshis might be worth a considerable sum, and releasing periodic updates to shift the limit is a bad practice. Even now I think 5k satoshis is a bit too much. I'd opt for 1k.
Well good thing there is no hard limit. The dust limit is a variable and the default value is 5430 satoshis. You are free to install 0.8.2 and set it to 1000 satoshis if you like.
drawing its value from a series of calculations that determine, from difficulty, transactions etc. how much 1BTC is worth
Clearly you have not idea what decentralized currency means, look it up some time, 1 BTC will always be worth 1 BTC, it isn't tied to any one currency. This bring into another issue, how do we tell people that to think of bitcoin as bitcoin, and not as storage for dollars or yen. I mean 1BTC == 1BTC regardless of the trading.
But that is cause the free market deems that as the value. 1BTC value can't be gotten from how many are mine or how much the difficulty is. That is your flaw in your thinking, you think that some meaning full value comes about cause of the difficultly or how many are out there, in reality it is the free markets that deem bitcoin is the ~$100.
drawing its value from a series of calculations that determine, from difficulty, transactions etc. how much 1BTC is worth
Clearly you have not idea what decentralized currency means, look it up some time, 1 BTC will always be worth 1 BTC, it isn't tied to any one currency. This bring into another issue, how do we tell people that to think of bitcoin as bitcoin, and not as storage for dollars or yen. I mean 1BTC == 1BTC regardless of the trading.
drawing its value from a series of calculations that determine, from difficulty, transactions etc. how much 1BTC is worth
Clearly you have not idea what decentralized currency means, look it up some time, 1 BTC will always be worth 1 BTC, it isn't tied to any one currency. This bring into another issue, how do we tell people that to think of bitcoin as bitcoin, and not as storage for dollars or yen. I mean 1BTC == 1BTC regardless of the trading.
I think a dust-proof limit should be implemented, but should be dynamic in nature, drawing its value from a series of calculations that determine, from difficulty, transactions etc. how much 1BTC is worth and what amount is trivial. A hard limit is a very bad idea, considering bitcoin's climbing value and difficulty. A few years from now 5k satoshis might be worth a considerable sum, and releasing periodic updates to shift the limit is a bad practice. Even now I think 5k satoshis is a bit too much. I'd opt for 1k.
I've been wrapping my head around the whole thing for awhile now and it just seems like one of those bans/limitations to a much larger problem ( If it is as much as a problem as people seem to think ) but to me it does seem as if some miners are desperate to get there way an awful lot when it comes to Bitcoin even if it means wrecking who whole currency just so they can profit more in paper money. If you remember we had a load of them ranting about the hard limits put on Bitcoin too and ASIC miners, screaming about the end of the Bitcoin.
It's going to affect CoinURL.com... we would no longer be able to pay out small satoshi payouts like we normally do.. but I suppose raising the minimum withdrawal is sort of an answer.. that is forced upon us..
Why have you been doing that in the first place? Sending out payments which the receiver is unable to use without paying a fee much larger than the payment received, is just telling the users to "f**k off, we don't want you here, go away". 
It's going to affect CoinURL.com... we would no longer be able to pay out small satoshi payouts like we normally do.. but I suppose raising the minimum withdrawal is sort of an answer.. that is forced upon us..
Good idea, I mean, if I send you 1 satoshi, with the fee structure we're using right now you cannot spend that 1 satoshi (0.0005BTC fee), so I loose 1 satoshi, you get nothing and the blockchain gets bloated. Its a no brainer, well at least until we have a proper fee structure in lace
Wrong in so many ways ...If you send me 1 satoshi, I get 1 satoshi - end of story.
Nothing stops me spending it (whether I have to pay a fee, or carefully calculate how to spend it at the time of using an "old" bitcoin, or leave it for years to eventually age or whatever is my choice)
- I still have 1 more satoshi than I started with.
Blockchain bloat - yes it's an issue, one that the current plan does nothing to actually addresss.
Fees are also an issue - one that requires a rethink on overall 'wallet management'.
How will this affect sites like BitVisitor.com?
Well, here's their last 10 payouts:
Quote from: http://www.bitvisitor.com/stats.php
| 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 |
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.
How will this affect sites like BitVisitor.com?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jump to: