Nancarrow, Justusranvier, Itchthyo,
Just to clarify, I wasn't ranting, nor was I taking the opposite position to anybody. I just asked a few questions.
I think asking questions while being a newbie is better than being ignorant.
Topic: Boycott 0.8.2 - page 13. (Read 18974 times)
for every one of these screaming lunatics who can't read,
I'm starting to wonder if they can read but are just trying to stir up shit so they can pump altcoins.I'm not trying to pump altcoins, but if staying on 0.8.1 will not create a fork, then I think it's a great idea. Let the miners decide!
Ultimately, there's going to be all sorts of diversity in which miners include which transactions. Some with high fees, some with low fees, some with NO fees! Some that allow dust, others that don't.
Nothing to worry about here..
It's just a default value, and not a protocol change !
This change is really insificant... Like dust tx are. Come on, be realistic. For this default to be reajust, to enable Tx of half a penny, 1 BTC must worth 10 000 !
I'll update to 0.8.2 !
Those panic thread are not usefull, and beside the track IMHO !
EDIT : Reading further, I think im wrong about 1 BTC = 10 000 fiat for a .5 penny.. anyway..
Tx fees should be the real factor overall !
It's just a default value, and not a protocol change !
This change is really insificant... Like dust tx are. Come on, be realistic. For this default to be reajust, to enable Tx of half a penny, 1 BTC must worth 10 000 !
I'll update to 0.8.2 !
Those panic thread are not usefull, and beside the track IMHO !
EDIT : Reading further, I think im wrong about 1 BTC = 10 000 fiat for a .5 penny.. anyway..
Tx fees should be the real factor overall !
I don't know how gmaxwell, jgarzik and Gavin put up with this, really I don't.
I just hope they realize that for every one of these screaming lunatics who can't read, there are tens of thousands of us who appreciate their hard work. Thanks, guys.
2. Couldn't devs spend their valuable time on providing upgrades with non-controvertial features?
Who determines what is non-controversial?
You just make an observation:
- if you there are zero people ranting about a certain modification then the issue is non-controversial;
- if there are people ranting, then it's controversial.
- if you there are zero people ranting about a certain modification then the issue is non-controversial;
- if there are people ranting, then it's controversial.
Sorry for the nitpicking, but at that point you, as a developer have allready spent your valuable time on implementing that modification. Finding out what and how to do it is the bulk of any development work.
One thing many people don't understand: Open-Source is not democratic. Open Source development values doing over debating. Some people thus say, Open-Source is a "meritocratiy": who achieved the most, has the most say.
The morale is: if you're unsatisfied with the dev's work, then learn to code and do better. It isn't hard, actually
[ETA this was in reply to Loozik]
So the devs should only spend time making changes that no-one is going to rant about?
The trouble with that approach is, sometimes the people who rant, are idiots. Must we really all remain non-controversial so that morons don't start shouting?
Should biologists and climate scientists stop studying evolution and global warming because there are yahoos out there for whom those topics are controversial?
Should we abhor censorship so much that we work ourselves up into righteous indignation whenever someone shrilly cries out that censorship is happening? Even when it's, you know, not?
Perhaps a better idea would be, instead of tut-tutting whenever controversy arises, maybe we should study what both sides of the controversy have to say, so that we can quickly come to the realisation that one side consists of thoughtful people who know what they are doing, while the other side consists of people who SHOUT IN CAPS to cover their inability to think coherently?
I don't know how gmaxwell, jgarzik and Gavin put up with this, really I don't.
So the devs should only spend time making changes that no-one is going to rant about?
The trouble with that approach is, sometimes the people who rant, are idiots. Must we really all remain non-controversial so that morons don't start shouting?
Should biologists and climate scientists stop studying evolution and global warming because there are yahoos out there for whom those topics are controversial?
Should we abhor censorship so much that we work ourselves up into righteous indignation whenever someone shrilly cries out that censorship is happening? Even when it's, you know, not?
Perhaps a better idea would be, instead of tut-tutting whenever controversy arises, maybe we should study what both sides of the controversy have to say, so that we can quickly come to the realisation that one side consists of thoughtful people who know what they are doing, while the other side consists of people who SHOUT IN CAPS to cover their inability to think coherently?
I don't know how gmaxwell, jgarzik and Gavin put up with this, really I don't.
NO transactions should be blocked,
Then spam clogs the network.
Quote
and currently no transaction have been blocked,
False. Anti-spam relay rules have been blocking transactions since the first days of bitcoin.
In the past, you might get dropped for sending 0.01 BTC, instead of the much-low levels of today.
Anti-spam and blocking legitimate transactions are two different things. If I want to send 0.00000001 in 0.8.2 I can't, if I want to pay fee and I still can't send it, that is censorship. And your just saying anything under a certain amount is spam, did you guys do any research to show that blocking that transaction would be the correct move? I think you and that little gang of "developers" are just power hungry and have a vendetta against Satoshi dice, cause they showed a weakness in bitcoin, and you guys don't want to do the proper coding to fix it.
This is sad in so many ways. To sum it up :
*1. One guy is deciding stuff. Backed by thedev group; not very decentralized.
*2. No alternatives to resist this.
*3. Bitcoin no longer equals 100mil satoshis! only 00000 !!!
*4. Goes against the ideology of the original paper by Satoshi which clearly states that btc is created for small transactions.
*5. I believe value of btc will rise. at 184+ you wont be able to pay in pennies. At 1842+ not in tens ofpennies. At 18416+ not in dollars. [I believe btc can rise upto this value]
*6. The sum of 54.3uBTC was chosen based on 'current value in dollars' it seems. Disappointing! Why are we comparing to fiat? We aim to move away from it.
Practically this is a change in the protocol and the way bitcoin works.
*1. One guy is deciding stuff. Backed by thedev group; not very decentralized.
*2. No alternatives to resist this.
*3. Bitcoin no longer equals 100mil satoshis! only 00000 !!!
*4. Goes against the ideology of the original paper by Satoshi which clearly states that btc is created for small transactions.
*5. I believe value of btc will rise. at 184+ you wont be able to pay in pennies. At 1842+ not in tens ofpennies. At 18416+ not in dollars. [I believe btc can rise upto this value]
*6. The sum of 54.3uBTC was chosen based on 'current value in dollars' it seems. Disappointing! Why are we comparing to fiat? We aim to move away from it.
Practically this is a change in the protocol and the way bitcoin works.
There is, the alternative is LTC, it's designed for micro-transactions that BTC chain can't handle. Like I said a year ago, LTC will be a transactional currency, while BTC will be a reserve currency (no tiny transactions allowed at all). LTC is a great supplement for BTC.
That makes absolutely no sense. So we're going to use Bitcoin 2 to handle microtransactions, but not use it to hold value? Why not just use one Bitcoin network for both, and avoid having the complicated situation of having two protocols that work almost exactly the same but are incompatible and used for different purposes?
The alternative is to not use the default value in the client, or not upgrade to the 0.8.2 client. This is NOT a protocol change. People are free to use other clients, or simply change the default value to something else. What you've proposed would harm adoption of Bitcoin-like currency, by increasing the coin supply which harms the perception of bitcoin scarcity, would make Bitcoin less useful, by fragmenting the network across multiple blockchains, and would not unfold as you imagine, as whatever blockchain is used for transactions would end up being used to store value as well.
Unless the blockchain size is truly unlimited, which is impossible, someone is always going to get their transactions blocked.
NO transactions should be blocked, and currently no transaction have been blocked, miners have chose not to include them, but some miners will pick those up. THis is blocking transactions making them not able to be included or CENSORSHIP.So please research again and then say something smart.
Miners choose what transactions to include or not include. Many choose not to include e.g. S.D stransactions or very small transactions. This change makes it default to not include transactions which the receiver can't spend without paying more in fees than the transaction is worth, but an evil miner can easily change this and include the transaction if he wants to contribute to a denial of service against bitcoin users. It is a soft rule, not a hard rule.
I don't believe for a second that you are an actual programmer, btw.
Another one that didn't read, did you read that it will be on by default for mines, that you have to change to off instead of one. Did you also read this is a form of censorship.
And I could care less if you thought I was a programmer or not LOL
2. Couldn't devs spend their valuable time on providing upgrades with non-controvertial features?
Who determines what is non-controversial?
You just make an observation:
- if you there are zero people ranting about a certain modification then the issue is non-controversial;
- if there are people ranting, then it's controversial.
Why not just make a fork? I think it's just one or two lines of code, so should be easily done.
It's open source. Fork away.
Though the consequence is that you remain at a higher, hardcoded fee level, and people will still dump megabytes worth of non-currency data into the blockchain (wikileaks cables etc.).
Exactly what I meant.
It's all democratic so people should just stop whining and fork away, and the network will vote by foot.
Why not just make a fork? I think it's just one or two lines of code, so should be easily done.
It's open source. Fork away.
Though the consequence is that you remain at a higher, hardcoded fee level, and people will still dump megabytes worth of non-currency data into the blockchain (wikileaks cables etc.).
I thought that how Bitcoin system works cannot be changed unless 100% of the participants agree.
It is this way, indeed. If some people decide to start their nodes with a different minimum fee setting, and if some miners / pools decide to continue to accept dust transactions (or if Someone(TM) writes an alternative client) then they continue to be propagated and mined...
1. Why not 100 or 1000 micro BTC, but 54 BTC? 100 or 1000 is nicer and divides better.
This new patch defines "dust" outputs by comparing their value to the required minimum fee.
There is now a comandline setting to change that minimum fee (previously it was hard wired). If you change that setting for your client, the threshold for "dust" transactions is adjusted accordingly.
2. Couldn't devs spend their valuable time on providing upgrades with non-controvertial features?
Who determines what is non-controversial?
Why not just make a fork? I think it's just one or two lines of code, so should be easily done.
The beautiful mathematical design of Bitcoin just makes sense.
The very moment Bitcoin's basic principles / ideas underlying Bitcoin system were explained to me I knew Bitcoin is a scientific beauty. I am a mathematical layman, but the beauty of the concept simply floored me. Just like Mona Lisa smile would floor a neanderthal.
This is arbitrary.
Yes, it is. I thought that how Botcoin system works cannot be changed unless 100% of the participants agree. Being a silly newbie I realize that I might not be understanding the exact, the whole and the true picture of the case though.
Out of curiosity:
1. Why not 100 or 1000 micro BTC, but 54 BTC? 100 or 1000 is nicer and divides better.
2. Couldn't devs spend their valuable time on providing upgrades with non-controvertial features?
I will definitely not update. Even if some agree this was correct, basing it in the price of USD... 54ubtc will be 1 cent of a dollar when its value is aprox 184 USD, so what's the point to have a digital cryptocurrency that can't allow even that? And you know changing it deppending on USD price is totally wrong
If you want to spend hours and hours curating large sets of addresses containing trivial sums of cash, you're crazy. In fact, it will cost you a bundle to do so, patch or no patch. The dust issue is supposed to be eliminated by transaction fees...but, transaction fees (which IMHO are too high, but that's up to the miners)
Exactly. 0.8.2 will actually lower the base fee for low priority transactions (well, unless its decided to undo this, I guess), but then does this to prevent that change from further opening the floodgates to non-currency transactions.Well that is clever. Two birds with one stone. I'm glad there are people smarter than me thinking this through. I do wish someone would invent anti hysteria cream...perhaps it's just plain old teenager angst run amok, but, people seem to think something more than just "ho-hum" is going on. It's kind of a big yawner (unless you're SD or misinformed)...
Yes cause they censored them, either conform to our standards or don't do business anymore.
You sure like that word. I thought I did too ... too bad you're well on your way to destroying its meaning.What the heck are you talking about? How was anyone censored? Or are you just happily making up stuff?
Well that is sad, you automatically labeled stuff as "stupid" the funny part about all this is, that it is like the when the foundation start, I saw how hurtful it was to become and everyone called that stupid. Now a lot of those people I see are the ones calling it hurtful now. Time will show that I am right.
Also I love how a dev from the dev team just goes to the part "Your making this up". I can't argue with a person that is clearly just not going to defend there position.
We will all see how this plays out...
You idiots know it's just a default setting that can be changed, right?
You can just change this in the config, and connect to a few nodes in pools that accept non-standard tx's.
You can just change this in the config, and connect to a few nodes in pools that accept non-standard tx's.
If you want to spend hours and hours curating large sets of addresses containing trivial sums of cash, you're crazy. In fact, it will cost you a bundle to do so, patch or no patch. The dust issue is supposed to be eliminated by transaction fees...but, transaction fees (which IMHO are too high, but that's up to the miners)
Exactly. 0.8.2 will actually lower the base fee for low priority transactions (well, unless its decided to undo this, I guess), but then does this to prevent that change from further opening the floodgates to non-currency transactions.Quote
I think a wiser approach (which is being debated by the devs) would be something like tying the dust definition to the size of a transaction fee. Also, they can undo this change in the future, so keep your worthless SD transactions safe...someday you might be able to spend them in an economic manner.
It is tied to the transaction fees— though instead of being tied to the ones actually used, its tied to the miner configurable dust-fee threshold. And not just "they" can undo, miners— anyone can set it.Jump to: