Topic: Boycott 0.8.2 - page 16. (Read 18974 times)

You been drinking the Gavin juice too much. If I want to send a 0.00000001 BTC to someone, I can't under 0.8.2. If I want to do that in 0.8.1, the fees are high but that still means I CAN DO IT. Do you now see the censorship.

Yes, assuming you mean "with a single input of value 3.000005"* that is the current (since 0.3.19?) behavior.

*(if instead your wallet had, say two inputs of respective values 3 and .000005 it would just use the first exactly)

This.

cough cough just get rid of satoshi dice cough cough

Then you didn't read, If you listen to Gavin, then your just a follower and shouldn't be making any comments. long story short it is censorship in the highest degree.

You're misunderstanding. This doesn't inhibit the _spending_ of small outputs, it inhibits the creating of them.

The wallet software already avoided creating them because they'd trigger fees higher than the amount being received as change.

You can still do it, but instead of having to pay 50,000 times the amount in fees— you have to find a miner willing to do it or mine the block yourself (with p2pool if you want to pool).... this is no worse than all the other kinds non-standard transactions that I listed, which you happily ignored. Instead of paying an enormous amount in fees, you can instead just add that to the amount you are paying. It's silly to force you to give funds away from miners as a proxy for trying to get you to not create outputs that aren't worth spending.

As I mentioned, there are tons of transactions you already cannot easily make. For example, you currently can't easily send 1e-8 to someone without including a fee which is 50,000 times larger than the amount you are sending. You cannot easily make a payment which requires 2 keys out of 20 to redeem.  You cannot easily make a payment that adds 5 kilobytes of extra "message" data in a transaction. You cannot easily send a txout with value 0 zero to someone... etc. All of these things are non-standard transactions.  The protocol rules permit them, so miners can add them— but you have to find a miner willing to modify their software to do it.  Whats new here is an additional kind "you can't easily use a transaction which creates txouts which are small relative to the amount miners treat as zero", which can be freely overridden by miners changing that amount.

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.

No censorship means I want to send 0.00000001 BTC to someone, if I am using the 0.8.2 Client then I can't. That is censorship. Or that by default your making it so miners are towards what you guys think is best. Instead of trying to figure out how to maybe make the blockchain smaller or use a different database, you just go "Easy fix is to block these transactions" Well that is just sad, that satoshi had faith in Gavin and he is letting all of us down. Now you claim he is making a market, but shouldn't the miners be doing that on there own, Gavin should have no hands on with that unless it is a bug fix. You all need to re-read the papers, cause your killing bitcoins AS WE KNOW IT.

Thats not correct. This isn't a protocol rule. As miners shift down the fee value they consider to be 0 for priority purposes it shifts this threshold down too.

The word censorship loses meaning if you erroneously apply it to everything you don't like.

People can create txoutputs which cost more in fees to spend than they provide in bitcoins. This results in an increase in the perpetual unprunable data and the working set size of full nodes, and people use these outputs to also force all bitcoin users to carry around non-bitcoin data.  Making the default behavior to not mine the creation of new outputs that can't be economically spent directly addresses the issue of outputs which are uneconomical to spend.

People are demanding that the fees be _decreased_ while the non-bitcoin junk data storage is _increasing_ under the current fees.  This is the same general mechanism and it's also adjustable.

What the change does is makes it so that you can't pay a single 0.0001 fee and create a ton of 0.00000001 outputs.  The base fee was 0.0005btc/KB in 0.8.1 and 0.8.2 _lowers_ the base fee to 0.0001BTC/kb but refuses to mine transactions which create outputs which are so small that they'd be uneconomical to spend considering the miner's configured minimum-fee-to-not-treat-as-zero.


Uh. You are so thoroughly confused I don't know where to start.

(1) The change doesn't block anything.  Your "CENSORSHIP" here is crying wolf. It changes the default mining behavior to not include some transactions which are very likely to be abusive non-financial transactions, but it's just a default and its adjustable. It doesn't make them not able to be included. You've been told this multiple times. You've acknowledged that you understand that it's a configurable default, so are you intentionally telling lies now?

(2) There are VERY many transaction kinds which are inhibited in exactly the same way— in fact, unlike this most of them can't be permitted without modifying the source code. (Search for 'bitcoin standard transactions')

Has nobody read this thread?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191425.0;all


If that's the direction the reference client is going then I consider this to be a positive change.

Unless the blockchain size is truly unlimited, which is impossible, someone is always going to get their transactions blocked.

The demand side of supply and demand for blockchain space is unlimited. You can always use it to timestamp data at least, so why not timestamp everything you can get your hands on if transactions are really cheap?

We need to find a balance between cheap transactions and decentralization. I believe 1MB is fine for the forseeable future, but other people think differently.

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.

Yes in particular people putting data onto the blockchain encoded as transactions: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wtf-kiddy-porn-in-the-blockchain-for-life-191039

There isn't any way to block that yet other than making it more expensive.

It shouldn't be on by default, it should be off by default like it is in the white papers. Instead of being here, maybe actually try and figure out the blockchain size problem correctly, without censorship.

Right.

So adjust the fees!! That is why the mechanism of fees was put in place cause it's adjustable.

they are being payed to fuck up the chain and bitcoin

in a few months/years time when bitcoin is $1000 each then the minimal purchase you can make is just over 5c

so imagine
companies that want to do penny per click advertising cant use bitcoin
all transaction amounts would be rounded up to 10c increments to avoid losing profit. so a 75c chewing gum becomes 80c
this is the same as the governments getting rid of coins and only using whole pounds/dollar notes.

so i too say boycott the upgrade

It's not a protocol rule and miners are free to include transactions with outputs smaller. The change causes miners not include transactions with outputs which are a small fraction of the fee amount they have configured to treat as zero for the purpose of priority. They can change the setting and the network doesn't mind. It's a default, not a rule.

This is expected to reduce the problem of people creating data storage transactions which are uneconomical (or impossible) to redeem, but shouldn't effect actual financial transactions (even if the value of Bitcoin goes through the roof— as people will adjust the fee-treated-as-zero as that happens, and the defaults will be updated as time goes on, the network isn't require to be consistent as— again— it's not a protocol rule).

IIRC, Satoshi himself put in the first rule against very small transactions— making the node behavior to only mine or relay if a fee of 0.01 or greater was provided for transactions without any outputs smaller than 0.01 in order to stop dust flooding attacks. Because fees of 0.01 became rather large they were subsequently lowered to 0.0005 and now 0.0001 but a single fee is being abused to cram many megabytes of child porn website directories and other such junk in unspendable txoutputs. Requiring larger outputs is hopefully less intrusive than requiring the same value as a larger fee.

The problem being... If miners upgrade to 0.8.2 then they won't even see your transaction.