Topic: Boycott 0.8.2 - page 14. (Read 18974 times)

The software has always dictated which transactions are relayed, or not.

This change makes it easier to change that limit, in fact.

Transactions have always been limited.  In the past, the limit was far higher than it is today.

Actaully you should be doing the reading, because your claim is completely wrong.

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.

Then spam clogs the network.


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.

Yes cause they censored them, either conform to our standards or don't do business anymore.

Ripple?

Well I pay 0.001 mbtc dont want fee inflation lol

I shouldn't be told how to spend my bitcoins, if I want to make them non-spendable that is what I want. It is censorship, plus they are doing it cause they have a vendetta against Satoshi Dice.

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) aren't high enough to make it truly expensive to stuff the block chain with large amounts of tiny transactions (bear in mind that transactions can also carry arbitrary text too).

Thus, any jerk with $100 can insert text into the block chain that is illegal is some jurisdictions. I mean, I don't live in a country where the government might kill me because I have a file on my computer that say "to hell with {insert religious figure}," but there probably are Bitcoin users who do.

The only people really affected by this patch are those using the blockchain for non-economic purposes (like Satoshi Dice saying, sorry, you lost...that's just transmitting information, nothing of current or relative value exchanges hands).

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.

You can, but it's inelegant. The beauty of using the blockchain to trade non-btc assets is that theoretically you could use one bitcoin and create an entire private currency out of its individual satoshis. This would make bitcoin as a whole more valuable. If you say that you can only use increments of 10,000 satoshis to represent a single asset, then you're not using the entire potential of btc to communicate information. You are creating an artificial cap on the value of btc, as well as imposing an unnecessary cost on asset issuers.

The only thing censored is by me hitting the ignore button on the OP and anybody else posting stupid stuff here. Plonk!

Censorship.

It just shows that while Bitcoin is working using irrefutable mathematics it is still under the personal whim of gullible people thus rendering it unstable, perhaps even more unstable because the whole thing is managed by financially unstable individuals who would sell their soul happily to wreck everything we have worked so hard for.

Kind of reminds me of how totalitarian governments acquires control, first scare the masses with the threat of terrorism (S.Dice) then ask them to surrender their rights for the government (Gavin) to protect them, then continue spewing propaganda claiming anyone to resist is a traitor.

Ideally, you would have a "tree" system where Bitcoin separates into two different builds, perhaps liberal/conservative style (even though both are identical in this case) and users would be able to "vote" to choose which build they want to download and use.

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?

Delete the private key if you want to make your BTC unspendable, don't bloat the blockchain with it.


Its fairly simple to remove the patch if you like, I'm not sure but I think nodes will still broadcast the tx, right?


They should, SDice abuses the system, Bitcoin resources aren't unlimited, we have to share the resources between us. SDice should play nice and use the Bitcoin network resources efficiently and not waste them.

It's not censorship, if you ask me, its like the other person not getting the BTC at all because they can't spend it. Why should we have transactions where the sender looses BTC and the receiver gets nothing?

I'll say!

Thanks for the quality explanations gmaxwell  

Please everyone read carefully what gmaxwell has to say. He knows a lot more about the inner workings of Bitcoin than any of you (including me). (I'm not saying to blindly follow him, but please take a few minutes to comprehend what he tries to explain to you).

Maybe you are miss understanding, here is how it works right now:

I have 1BTC. I send you 1 satoshi. I now have 0.99999999BTC

You receive 0BTC, because the 1 satoshi is unspendable because there is a 0.0005BTC fee to spend it.

The Blockchain grows in size, using up more space on every Bitcoin user's PC & network resources are wasted.

Now please tell me why we shouldn't have this patch?