Topic: Boycott 0.8.2 - page 10. (Read 18974 times)

It isn't that simple, cause with at least one miner on board, we can't do anything. Also why would we fork our own coin, there is enough wasted alt coins that just change one thing, that would just push people away from the cause.

Well free markets are all about competition right? Why not code your own Bitcoin platform that can host Node code that you believe in, and promote it?

Dude nice harddrive! What make and model is it? And what linux distro do you run?

On-Topic: Yes, almost any miner and bitcoin user is capable of storing the blockchain, however, it simply is not efficient for mobile devices.

Nobody's "forcing you" to do anything, they're just rejecting your potential transactions that don't meet certain requirements.

I feel like this has probably been explained to you multiple times so I am probably wasting my time. But here goes. It's simple:
-Miners have always been able to choose which size transactions to accept or decline.
-It used to be very hard to do this and require reconfiguration and recompiling the code
-Now it's very easy to do this via a .conf file. 

The miners are 'forcing' you, just like they always have, to only expect to have a tx included in a block if it meets their requirements. It just so happens to be a lot easier to change those requirements now.

The baker does not have to accept the candlesticks from the candlestick maker if they do not meet his specifications. The butcher does not have to accept the bread from the baker if they do not satisfy his taste buds. The auto mechanic does not have to service your car if you hand him a little toy plastic car and he knows you're not worth his time. The miner does not have to accept your tx if he doesn't want to - no matter the reason.

You'd be a pretty good socialist. You want to keep the code in its archaic form where miners are [almost] forced to accept ALL transactions because the method to restrict certain tx types involves an intimate understanding of how to reconfigure and recompile the codebase that most miners won't have. That's like the automakers who use fancy security torx bits on the MAF sensor for no other reason than the torx companies have a deal with the automaker so they sell more security torx bits. This change is like Gavin replacing the fancy torx bits with a philips-head bolt or hex head.

Sounds like someone can't handle the free market Welcome to Bitcoin.

Still not a problem for the equipment available for a home PC.

But their isn't a limited resource environment. That is why we have SPV, you think your going to be running a full node for ever? I bet in another 5 years only the hardcore of the hardcore will be running full nodes, on dedicated machines. If you can't run a full node, SPV clients aren't as trust worthy but with the bloom filter better than nothing.

kjj +10, an accurate summation of gweedo's strange efforts 

I am on 0.8.2 as well I just choose to relay those transactions, cause I believe in free speech and that the developers should be fixing it not, limiting the functionality. Cause when you limit functionality it never comes back. Sadly no miners believe that and that is who needs to believe not people like you, I could care less what you thought, but I have been talking to miners non-stop and the devs brainwashed them to believe that the blockchain can't be fixed, by them. I guess you also believe in censoring companies like Satoshidice, cause we all know that is the whole reason for this anyway, that is what started the conversation. I am not going to rehash this, but if you want PM me and I will show you how the devs are just poor excuses for programmers.

Your position can be broken down into two parts:

Part 1.  "I think we should allow arbitrarily small transaction output amounts"   - rational, opinion
Part 2.  "and I want everyone else to be forced to comply with my will instead of being allowed to make their own choices.  Also, the devs are using evil sorcery to trick people into doing their bidding.  The newly added option that lets people express their own policy preferences easily was the last ingredient in their evil spell."  - cookoo, cookoo

(For readers new to this discussion, please read gweedo's many, many posts on this theme, here and elsewhere.  I feel that I've summarized his actual expressions very accurately and fairly.  I don't think that he's ever used the actual word "sorcery", but his logic chain would make underpants gnomes cringe:  1. Devs.  2. ? ? ?  3. Evil/Centralized/Controlled/Undemocratic/Whatever. )

LMAO I am framing this LOL the whole reason for P2P is that growth scales with the more users, so to call the infrastructure in-mature makes no sense. It is completely on the developer's shoulders. The developers can't solve it, they aren't the gods we thought they were, well I never thought that.

You forgot word Already

Who else almost forgot that the blockchain is over 7GB?

What is the reason not to send less that bitcoins to someone? Does it matter if things can be brought or not? Bitcoin is a transfer of wealth and also a contract system. Bitcoin is about free speech. Remember this is because the core development team can't fix a problem so their lack of knowledge is our loss of things we can do with bitcoin.

Well, I guess that confirms where the problem is.  Next time, maybe try not to insult your potential allies.

Actually, I'd almost forgotten about this topic.  At one point, I had been thinking about changing my p2pool miners to accept tiny transactions, but your insane rantings convinced me to stick with the defaults.

.. Shhhhhhhh, no, let them carry on blindly pursuing the one strategy that has the lowest mathematical chance of possibly allowing them to send transactions smaller than a "Gavin" in size 
 
Obviously they need miners for this.
As you've pointed out:
1) REALLY HARD SOLUTION: Convince some miners to boycott 0.8.2 ALTOGETHER

2) MUCH EASIER SOLUTION, just as effective: Convince some miners to simply edit their .conf files.

That we have 8 pages of discussion on this is just hilarious. Either way you have to get some miners on your side, and it would obviously be much easier to convince one to edit the .conf file than to boycott the new version altogether.

I love how on the first page, one person is like "The majority of bitcoiners oppose this new change" (lol) and another person says "This is practically a protocol change!"
If this were a protocol change... well, it's either a protocol change, or it's not. And it's not. Based on that initial impression, I assume the rest of the thread is meaningless drivel so I skipped it.

I agree with you that it's better if we can send any amount. What I'm suggesting is that everybody who wants this should pursue a strategy for achieving it that actually has a chance of working.

If you can't convince even one single solitary miner to join your cause, shouldn't you begin to consider that maybe the problem is you?

Gavin =Satoshi?

If one day I will get big I pledge to pursue the vision of what Bitcoin ought to look like, meeting up with the CIA will certainly not be on my schedule.

No dictatorship - anyone is free to whine and I am free to point out their whining as pointless, unjustified and unproductive.

If you're opposed to the default policy in 0.8.2 there two relevant possibilities that affect which courses of action will achieve a result you desire: either it's possible to persuade miners to follow you (actual miners, not hashing subcontractors), or it's not possible to persuade them.

If it's not possible to persuade them then talking about a boycott is pointless because they won't listen to you.

If it is possible to persuade them then the best course of action is to convince them to upgrade to 0.8.2 and set their -mintxfee and -mintxrelayfee to values you consider to be better than the defaults.