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.
Topic: Bitcoin 0.8.2. What do you think? - page 2. (Read 17190 times)
Can I send a payment for 0.00000001?
Sure as long as you can find a miner willing to include it in a block. The 0.8.2 change simply sets a DEFAULT min output size. A miner could reduce it to 0.0000001 if they want to. They likely won't or if they do will require a much larger tx fee so if you want to pay 0.0001 to send 0.0000001 then go ahead.
Miners have ALWAYS been free to include or not include a tx in the next block. That was true prior to 0.8.2 and it true after 0.8.2.
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)?
...
Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.
Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.
That's what I though back before...I dunno...a pretty GUI, wallet encryption, multi-sig, etc, etc. Most importantly, before the system gained a large userbase who relied on it. Oh well. Since I lack the skill and interest to actually do anything myself along these lines I can hardly complain.
I guess I'm in the same boat as you. I wouldn’t learn that crappy C++ if God refused the entry to heaven unless I learned it.
I guess I will just resign myself to never running a full node again. I like electrum anyway.
Can I send a payment for 0.00000001?
Sure as long as you can find a miner willing to include it in a block. The 0.8.2 change simply sets a DEFAULT min output size. A miner could reduce it to 0.0000001 if they want to. They likely won't or if they do will require a much larger tx fee so if you want to pay 0.0001 to send 0.0000001 then go ahead.
Miners have ALWAYS been free to include or not include a tx in the next block. That was true prior to 0.8.2 and it true after 0.8.2.
...
Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.
Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.
That's what I though back before...I dunno...a pretty GUI, wallet encryption, multi-sig, etc, etc. Most importantly, before the system gained a large userbase who relied on it. Oh well. Since I lack the skill and interest to actually do anything myself along these lines I can hardly complain.
For a couple of years now I have been reading periodic debates where one guy says, “21M Bitcoins will never be enough if the whole world wants to use it.” Then another guy shows up (DnT) and says, “Oh, but Bitcoin is divisible down so many decimals that it will easily fill the need as adoption increases.”
So which is it: Either adoption is never expected to tax the 21m limit so we can afford to knock off decimals, we will have to return to accepting dust payments eventually so may as well just keep using them now or we need to allow a breach of the 21m limit.
No decimals are knocked off. The minimum value is calculated from the minimum fee. When the minimum fee goes down (it has gone from 0.01 BTC to 0.0001 BTC while I have been using bitcoin), the size of economically unspendable outputs will decrease as well. In the future the minimum fee will get calculated dynamically based on which transactions actually make it to the blockchain, and eventually a 0.00000001 BTC output will become standard again.So which is it: Either adoption is never expected to tax the 21m limit so we can afford to knock off decimals, we will have to return to accepting dust payments eventually so may as well just keep using them now or we need to allow a breach of the 21m limit.
Quote
Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.
I disagree. Pruning valid unspent outputs would IMO be a much more drastic measure.Can I send a payment for 0.00000001?
For a couple of years now I have been reading periodic debates where one guy says, “21M Bitcoins will never be enough if the whole world wants to use it.” Then another guy shows up (DnT) and says, “Oh, but Bitcoin is divisible down so many decimals that it will easily fill the need as adoption increases.”
So which is it: Either adoption is never expected to tax the 21m limit so we can afford to knock off decimals, we will have to return to accepting dust payments eventually so may as well just keep using them now or we need to allow a breach of the 21m limit.
No decimals are knocked off. The minimum value is calculated from the minimum fee. When the minimum fee goes down (it has gone from 0.01 BTC to 0.0001 BTC while I have been using bitcoin), the size of economically unspendable outputs will decrease as well. In the future the minimum fee will get calculated dynamically based on which transactions actually make it to the blockchain, and eventually a 0.00000001 BTC output will become standard again.So which is it: Either adoption is never expected to tax the 21m limit so we can afford to knock off decimals, we will have to return to accepting dust payments eventually so may as well just keep using them now or we need to allow a breach of the 21m limit.
Quote
Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.
I disagree. Pruning valid unspent outputs would IMO be a much more drastic measure.
For a couple of years now I have been reading periodic debates where one guy says, “21M Bitcoins will never be enough if the whole world wants to use it.” Then another guy shows up (DnT) and says, “Oh, but Bitcoin is divisible down so many decimals that it will easily fill the need as adoption increases.”
So which is it: Either adoption is never expected to tax the 21m limit so we can afford to knock off decimals, we will have to return to accepting dust payments eventually so may as well just keep using them now or we need to allow a breach of the 21m limit.
Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.
So which is it: Either adoption is never expected to tax the 21m limit so we can afford to knock off decimals, we will have to return to accepting dust payments eventually so may as well just keep using them now or we need to allow a breach of the 21m limit.
Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.
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.
Sorry for being the English police, but do you understand the difference between the words "cause" and "because"? While your arguments might have merit, you discredit yourself with your shitty adolescent understanding of basic grammar.1. Miners never had to include any transactions in a block. They have always been free to chose.
2. Relays never had to relay any transactions. All nodes are free to chose which transactions to relay.
This is, always has been, and will still be in 0.8.2, depending on txfees and other characteristics of the transaction.
Which makes gweedo's entire post wrong, like all of his posts in this thread. There is not a single clue in his head about how bitcoin works.
gweedo, you're hilarious. You blaming others of skewing the poll because it does not fit your expectation... This is pure awesomeness 
I just hope that also the devs have the serenity to not take your troll attempts too serious. And respect to everyone who tried to give you a polite and technically sound answer.
I just hope that also the devs have the serenity to not take your troll attempts too serious. And respect to everyone who tried to give you a polite and technically sound answer.
No your going to the wrong direction, your going to the alt-coin that is too extreme, I still love bitcoins, I am not going anywhere. Bitcoins are my career, and this is just a bump in the experiment, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
I'm wondering if you had some hope of using the 'cheap subsidized messaging' capabilities of Bitcoin for some project or another and got a dose of cold water in the face?
Nope, not at all, I just feel it is something that takes it too far off of the white papers, that it isn't bitcoin anymore it is devteamcoin or something.
Gweedo, before you start your career in Bitcoin, you need to get through the 5th grade. "You're", not "Your."
Dude just stop your off-topic, your not helping in anyway, but doing that. We got your point, you think I am dumb, good now bye.
P.S just to throw salt on your wound, I am already started my career, and I am probably richer than you will ever be, so you can be jealous.
Gweedo, before you start your career in Bitcoin, you need to get through the 5th grade. "You're", not "Your."
No your going to the wrong direction, your going to the alt-coin that is too extreme, I still love bitcoins, I am not going anywhere. Bitcoins are my career, and this is just a bump in the experiment, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
I'm wondering if you had some hope of using the 'cheap subsidized messaging' capabilities of Bitcoin for some project or another and got a dose of cold water in the face?
Quote
Would I said it is time for a fork I don't know yet.
If I could get Peter Thiel and Paul Allen to join a new foundation for a new cryptocurrency that preserves some of the best features of Bitcoin, yet implements some of the features of the Hard Fork wishlist. Would you consider adopting it?
I was thinking about a system with 100 million bitcoin2.0s with 21 million premined and given to a special exchange allowing bitcoiners to convert their holdings in btc to btc2.0 on a 1-1 conversion rate. Miners would have control of transaction fees by a market system. Perhaps develop a P2P currency exchange to eliminate the need for a Mtgox.
I might write a whitepaper over the Summer.
No your going to the wrong direction, your going to the alt-coin that is too extreme, I still love bitcoins, I am not going anywhere. Bitcoins are my career, and this is just a bump in the experiment, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Why would you think that this update to the client necessitates a fork in the protocol?
Quote
Would I said it is time for a fork I don't know yet.
If I could get Peter Thiel and Paul Allen to join a new foundation for a new cryptocurrency that preserves some of the best features of Bitcoin, yet implements some of the features of the Hard Fork wishlist. Would you consider adopting it?
I was thinking about a system with 100 million bitcoin2.0s with 21 million premined and given to a special exchange allowing bitcoiners to convert their holdings in btc to btc2.0 on a 1-1 conversion rate. Miners would have control of transaction fees by a market system. Perhaps develop a P2P currency exchange to eliminate the need for a Mtgox.
I might write a whitepaper over the Summer.
Quote
That isn't my job, that is why Gavin gets a salary he should be working on that. Instead he just puts a temp patch and goes on a walk for an interview.
I would advocate leaving this decision to miners. Miners should have the ability to form a marketplace for what they will confirm in a block and what they won't confirm. Would you accept this system?
Great so you agree that 0.8.2 is a great solution because .... it does leave it up to miners. It replaced a constant with a variable that has a a default value one any node can modify. If a miner wants to include tx which has 1 satoshi outputs using 0.8.2 they can. If they want to require no fee for a giant 200KB tx which spams the network by having 500,000 1 satoshi outputs ... they can.
So what is the problem?
It's a good idea 68 (26.3%)
It's a good idea, But not at 5430 Satoshi 12 (4.6%)
It's a bad idea 86 (33.2%)
It's a bad idea, It should be a lower # of btc 3 (1.2%)
It's a temporary fix that should adjust with price 32 (12.4%)
It's a temporary fix that should be revised later 58 (22.4%)
Total Voters: 259
Just want to point out majority think it is a bad idea... this voting hasn't changed "It's a bad idea" has been in the lead the whole time.
It's a good idea, But not at 5430 Satoshi 12 (4.6%)
It's a bad idea 86 (33.2%)
It's a bad idea, It should be a lower # of btc 3 (1.2%)
It's a temporary fix that should adjust with price 32 (12.4%)
It's a temporary fix that should be revised later 58 (22.4%)
Total Voters: 259
Just want to point out majority think it is a bad idea... this voting hasn't changed "It's a bad idea" has been in the lead the whole time.
Fixed :p , bolded "it's a bad idea"
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.
Problem is not solved, because it is there in the first place.
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.
That isn't true at all, if the miners don't change there config with is on by default then they are supporting the change and you are forced to go with it.
Jump to: