Topic: Bitcoin 0.8.2. What do you think? - page 4. (Read 17081 times)

Most people are missing the point  


The point is that no one person should be able to tell the populous what to do.


That's the point of bitcoin.. Dividing the groups is bad..


Whats next? 1/100th of fees need to be deposited to dev accounts? upgrade to this or we wont ever upgrade bitcoin again!

Yes. There are configuration options for those. In bitcoind/-qt. No "make another client" needed.

Is it on the specifications? If it is not, you cannot order miners for some minimum output. Someone can make another client and pool which *conforms* the spec and allows smaller transctions.

But would it be against spec to allow any pool (or miner) to decide what transactions that pool lets in? Ie. a configuration option for minimum transaction output and fee?

I would guess markets would find a suitable minimum they accepts. Of course, there would be some pools which would accept all, but that would be minority. And if only some allows, that itself prevents the DDOS.

Is bitcoin no more a decentralized network!!?? This is a fresh new for me!

I don't see how I've twisted your words.  They are plain words, and their common meanings aren't unclear.

Before, if you wanted a node with a different mining or relay policy, you had to write your own, or modify the source and recompile.  After, you can tweak a setting in your configuration file and restart.*  Hardly end of the world stuff, and not in any way deserving of a dozen-thread smear campaign on the forums.

P.S.  I didn't have to take anyone's word for what the patch does.  The source code is public, I just clicked the link and read it.

*  I was thinking of writing a patch to create RPC commands to edit these configuration values without even needing the restart.  Some moron claimed that 95% of bitcoin users weren't competent to edit their config file, which I don't in any way believe to be true.  Still, adding a RPC command would make it settable by anyone that can find the debug window.  It would also allow people to write third party bots to make live adjustments based on whatever data feeds they thought appropriate.

Please don't twist my words, every one else understood what I was saying, and it wasn't what you think I was saying. I am not commenting on this subject anymore cause I realized that people here, take the words from the dev team to heart instead of challenging them on this "temp fix" which I have a feeling will be long term, censorship. It quite sad how many people will skew results, or twist words to fit it to what the dev team is saying including members of the dev team. They should all be ashamed of how they conduct business to the community.

Correct, though I must add that users already choose what to forward, or not.

Most notably, the client will not relay transactions outside of a very narrowly defined set of "standard" transactions.  The vast majority of possible transactions are not relayed by default.  This policy has been in place for years.

Bitcoin has never been about deregulation as it is based on a decentralized form of regulation, but still regulation.

This change will allow peers in the network decide which transactions they forward and which not based on their value. Nothing more, nothing less.

Miners already have the ability to decide which transactions they include in a block based on a fee, now I find it correct that as a user I have the ability to choose what I forward and what I don't.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
It may not be the best solution to the problem, but calling it Censorship is way off the road.

This is how I feel about this situation.





http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1drs61/bitcoincensored/

I think I've found the problem.

You have been operating under the mistaken impression that miners had to include certain transactions, and that nodes had to relay them.

No one has ever had to do anything.  Miners have always been free to set their own policies for inclusion into blocks, and node operators have always been free to set their own relay policies.

This patch makes it vastly easier for miners and node operators to implement their own policy decisions.  Calling it "regulation" or "censorship" is somewhere between Orwellian and Kafkaesque.

it isfine

People, i think the solution should be this:

Forbid transaction that includes output less than x for a output address with an actuall amount of less than y.

Where x is 100 times less than the transaction fee and y 100 times more than the transaction fee.
And,
the transaction fee IS the average of the transaction fee included in the last 4380 blocks.(1 month)
with a minimum hardcoded that will change, 0.0001 for transactions of less than 0.01(at the moment)

so for example if the currently average transaction fee is 0.00054
you cannot send less than 0.0000054 to an address with less than 0.054 (it will bounce back as change?)

this will:
1- Encourage the consolidation of addresses for people that have little amounts of coins and many addreses.
2- Not prevent people from making satoshi-transactions (they will pay a fee but they will have to have some balance in the receiving address)
3- Not bloat the blockchain
4- Help in the eventually cleanup of the blockchain: then after an x period, we can cleanup all addresses with less than 100 times the transaction fee safely.(i'm not sure if this last one is possible, but we could alow the sending for free of this satoshis to a address with a minimum balance)

That should deal with the bloated blockchain problem...
people with small amounts of satoshis, and that care enought, can still recover them by sending some btc (over 0.01) to the address and then send it it back or by  alowing the sending for free of satoshis only if they leave the address with 0 balane and are send to a address with a minimum balance.

TL,DR:
Encourage consolidation of addreses, forbid sending satoshis to an empty address, allow sending satoshis (if paying fee) to an address with balance, helping cleanup of blockchain (addresess with 0 balance should be pruned)

Oh look.
This.
'Fix'.
Again.
Again.
Again.Again.
Again.Again.Again.Again.
Again.Again.Again.
Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.A gain.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Ag ain.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Again.Aga in.Again.Again.Again.

Thank you for making me press the ignore button.

You read nothing I posted, I am done with you, cause you just talking about what you want too. Yes Majority is no one wants it, sorry you think skewing it will trick anybody into saying your right, which no one has.

LOL, you accuse me of skewing.  You can care about whatever you want, but it's an outright lie to represent "It's a bad idea [forever]" as winning over the current combination majority who are, at this very moment in current conditions, collectively in favor.  Not that a vote holds any sway over what the development team of an open-source project has to do.

Oh, just Gavin's greedy.  Sounds just as ridiculous as the whole team being greedy, so my point stands.  Having a vendetta against Satoshi Dice is not the same as being greedy, even if such a vendetta is the reason for this change.  By Satoshi Dice's own estimation, the increase to their costs is so tiny it's laughable to say this will kill them.  They might have to pay 430 extra satoshi, a whopping $0.0005074 at current prices.


You will still be able to do this.  You just have to find nodes to relay and mine the transaction for you, just like you do today.  The default settings are just making it harder.  Since you're willing to pay any fees, please contact a pool op and make a deal to ensure your transaction is mined.

Thanks for skewing the results of the poll to fit your need. You know there companies that pay big bucks for that

Sorted the list.

36% think it is bad, and 59% agrees perfectly with the change.  (The number will be adjusted with the price of a transaction, and yes it will be revised when the automatic txfee market is done, so both agree.)  0.6% thinks the limit should be lower, and 5.6% thinks it should be higher than 5430 Satoshi.  In total 64% thinks it is a good idea.  A large majority.

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.