Then riddle me this transaction
8bdb360363e17164a1a897f56e8ce9ab1f5deb1fed6786f7a74411e7ef2403b5
Which pays a 1 satoshi fee to get over the 1000B limit and include multiple "dust" transactions. So tell me again how dust can't be spent? Can you show me one transaction with a 1 satoshi (or more) fee that hasn't confirmed in over a couple of weeks?
Topic: Boycott 0.8.2 - page 4. (Read 18974 times)
You cant send a tx where the output is less than the new limit.
The new limit are based on developer estimates of cost.
But they have unintended consequences, for example, if you had made a business in colored coins, this change may hit you hard.
The new limit are based on developer estimates of cost.
But they have unintended consequences, for example, if you had made a business in colored coins, this change may hit you hard.
OK, but my point was simply that those transactions can be spent at nigh on 0 cost regardless of how small they are. So the change is not in any way designed to save people from receiving tiny transactions because of the costs that person will incur spending them.
Well no. If you send a spammy low priority tx with no fee there is a very good chance it will NEVER confirm. There is also a good chance it will never even be seen by a miner in your lifetime because every node following QT rules (which is more than just the QT clients) refuses to relay low priority tx which don't include a fee. As a result you will be forced to include a fee greater than the value of the output you are trying to spend in order to spend it which is utterly stupid. The 0.8.2 rules simply prevent CREATING new outputs which can't be spent. If nodes are willing to relay tx with smaller fees that threshold also decreases. For example the current default on low priority txs is a fee that is a minimum of 0.1 mBTC and thus that same node won't relay outputs smaller than 0.0543 mBTC. If today (or in the future) that node lowered the min mandatory fee on low priority txs to say 0.02 mBTC then it would also relay outputs as small as 0.01086 mBTC.
You cant send a tx where the output is less than the new limit.
The new limit are based on developer estimates of cost.
But they have unintended consequences, for example, if you had made a business in colored coins, this change may hit you hard.
The new limit are based on developer estimates of cost.
But they have unintended consequences, for example, if you had made a business in colored coins, this change may hit you hard.
OK, but my point was simply that those transactions can be spent at nigh on 0 cost regardless of how small they are. So the change is not in any way designed to save people from receiving tiny transactions because of the costs that person will incur spending them.
Colored coins are a pretty lousy idea anyway.
I mean they sound like a great idea at first, but they just don't seem to work when you try to actually do it. That sort of stuff belongs in a merged mining alt-chain. Namecoin is the proof-of-concept, but doesn't support fractional ownership, so it isn't exactly right. A chain for general fractional ownership has been described elsewhere. Just needs to be implemented.
I mean they sound like a great idea at first, but they just don't seem to work when you try to actually do it. That sort of stuff belongs in a merged mining alt-chain. Namecoin is the proof-of-concept, but doesn't support fractional ownership, so it isn't exactly right. A chain for general fractional ownership has been described elsewhere. Just needs to be implemented.
Yes. Colored coins is the major casualty, however, this would seem to be a perfect market for Peter Todd's off-chain solution of fidelity bonded banks and might be a real-world proof of concept for the whole idea.
It tries to stop you from being able to send people amounts that are so small, that it costs the person receiving it more money to spend then what you sent them. To say it again, It costs them more money then you sent them.
Except it doesn't and you can easily send transactions that use 1 satoshi as the fee (per thousand bytes) using the standard bitcoin-qt client. It may take a day or two to confirm but they always go through eventually. Maybe in some future world you'll be right but as for now you are not.
You cant send a tx where the output is less than the new limit.
The new limit are based on developer estimates of cost.
But they have unintended consequences, for example, if you had made a business in colored coins, this change may hit you hard.
It tries to stop you from being able to send people amounts that are so small, that it costs the person receiving it more money to spend then what you sent them. To say it again, It costs them more money then you sent them.
Except it doesn't and you can easily send transactions that use 1 satoshi as the fee (per thousand bytes) using the standard bitcoin-qt client. It may take a day or two to confirm but they always go through eventually. Maybe in some future world you'll be right but as for now you are not.
I can no l0nger use bitcoin on either a mac or windows. I cant even install the client on windows without errors and my mac is unuseable with bitcoin-qt. Yes you should boycott it, because the coding is fucking shit.
Your semi right in the sense it does use allot of your CPU to check that new blocks it receives are valid, Why that is.. im not entirely sure. could a GPU in this case speed this up and take some of the load off of the CPU? I dont know.
If your having issues installing the client then i dont think its the clients fault.
If on the other hand you mean you cant install it because of the errors you get while its checking the blockchain, or that it stops checking it. I think that means your cpu is giving invalid information back to the program when it verifies the block. If the cpu messes up and the data ends up damaged and shows its incorrect, the client seems to stop dead in its tracks since there is no point trying to further verify a 'invalid' block. To that end.. maybe it should check a failed block twice
You should look into it and maybe bug the devs if this is the case.(you can simply restart the client to get it to try that block again)Anyone else know if this is accurate?
And the more you say it doesn't make it right. No one has explained why it is spam? It isn't spam, when I started with bitcoin, micro-transactions were welcomed. And at that point they were worth less than they are worth now. So what changed, the core dev team can't fix the blockchain and don't want to deal with it.
I see that you joined about two weeks after SD started. Now I am not blaming SD, but I think that their business model first highlighted the effect upon the Bitcoin network of many 'legitimate' micro-transactions. Clearly a few are always tolerable, but before SD they were rare, unless they were part of a deliberate spamming attack, and overall volumes small enough that it did not matter. SD has improved a lot with its minimum (0.0005 BTC, I believe). The 0.8.2 changes reduces the risk of other pseudo-legitimate sources of high-volume micro-transactions emerging.
There are possible optimizations for blockchain handling, such as the one maaku is working on, but it is still some time off yet.
I was actually around before SD, was. But that isn't an excuse. SD created a business model, that was successful, Erik didn't do anything he wasn't suppose and even paid the fees, making that excuse a very bad one. That is the free market if it was harmful to the end user, why not stop using SD all together. But instead of doing that, the core devs took it upon them to say, that is not how we want bitcoin to be use, and they changed it. Shame on them, that is horrible and they talk about how bad money is. Look at bitspend chase shut them down, basically the core dev team did the same thing to SD. Horrible, inexcusable abuse of their power, and not an excuse as to why micro-transactions should be stopped.
For the sake of anyone reading this. This person is trying to get people to not use the new client because they think its censorship, when nobody agrees with them. Its why they have ignore lit up.
The quick break down.
-What does this patch do?
It tries to stop you from being able to send people amounts that are so small, that it costs the person receiving it more money to spend then what you sent them. To say it again, It costs them more money then you sent them. As a result it doesnt get spent and bloats the blockchain with data that *cant* be pruned because people *wont* spend it, because it costs them more money then you sent them, so why would they?
While pruning has not been implemented yet it will be, at some point.
On the page that has the client download and on the git pull, it says and has said exactly why its being implemented. After reading that, anyone that had enough of a understanding of bitcoin fully understood why its essential that it be implemented.
I honestly hope you understand why this is important.
What stops anyone from using 0.8.2 and setting it to accept microtransactions? Unless it's just that the miner is too dumb to do that, the newer client is even more customizable than the last.
What stops people is that is by default off, so unless we all start sharing IPs with I don't think we want to, it would be very hard to relay that transaction, to a miner if any miner would pick it up. I have yet to find a miner that supports this so I can directly connect to them.
So how is a boycott effective unless it's miners doing the boycotting? Are they joining in?
I am trying to talk to them and get them to join, but their greedy eyes are wider. I am also thinking of taking $500,000 of my own money and investing in ASIC miners and doing mining myself. I am stilling thinking about that option cause $500,000 would make a tough year for me, but I am so passionate about the community I would do it.
I am a miner and I prefer the new fee structure. Microtransactions are certainly still possible, but they now require fees more in line with other transactions of the same size (storage-wise). Also, larger (transfer amount) transactions are now cheaper. I think this is a better balance.
This has nothing to do with fees, please read the thread before responding and certainly if your a miner you need to learn this. Dust amounts are not possible due to no one relaying them or mining them, they will never get thru.
And the more you say it doesn't make it right. No one has explained why it is spam? It isn't spam, when I started with bitcoin, micro-transactions were welcomed. And at that point they were worth less than they are worth now. So what changed, the core dev team can't fix the blockchain and don't want to deal with it.
I see that you joined about two weeks after SD started. Now I am not blaming SD, but I think that their business model first highlighted the effect upon the Bitcoin network of many 'legitimate' micro-transactions. Clearly a few are always tolerable, but before SD they were rare, unless they were part of a deliberate spamming attack, and overall volumes small enough that it did not matter. SD has improved a lot with its minimum (0.0005 BTC, I believe). The 0.8.2 changes reduces the risk of other pseudo-legitimate sources of high-volume micro-transactions emerging.
There are possible optimizations for blockchain handling, such as the one maaku is working on, but it is still some time off yet.
I was actually around before SD, was. But that isn't an excuse. SD created a business model, that was successful, Erik didn't do anything he wasn't suppose and even paid the fees, making that excuse a very bad one. That is the free market if it was harmful to the end user, why not stop using SD all together. But instead of doing that, the core devs took it upon them to say, that is not how we want bitcoin to be use, and they changed it. Shame on them, that is horrible and they talk about how bad money is. Look at bitspend chase shut them down, basically the core dev team did the same thing to SD. Horrible, inexcusable abuse of their power, and not an excuse as to why micro-transactions should be stopped.
Show me where I was repeating myself, cause I only repeated myself since people were asking the same questions over and over. So that isn't me repeating myself.
How was my concern addressed completely?
How is setting the default policy to block these transactions exactly making it easier?
How was my concern addressed completely?
How is setting the default policy to block these transactions exactly making it easier?
Go read. It is all there. You quoted most of it in replies. You just didn't read it.
This is the saddest thread of the forums, cause this right here, shows that if aren't on the side of the core developers then you must be the idiot. And that is what hurts me the most, and makes me sad. Freedom of speech... none is being shown in this thread. If you actually read my point of view before attacking me you would understand. I have discussed this with many bitcoiners offline and online, and this is the only thread that completely doesn't get it. That is the most upsetting thing ever. I don't know if your scared to say Gavin is a dictator or you actually believe this is the right move, but if understood my point of view you would agree with it. Or maybe not since you seem like a bitcoin foundation front runner, so yeah.
No, you are just an idiot. It has nothing to do with who disagrees with you, it is all about you. Just because we can all see that you are an idiot doesn't make us conspirators. You are out in the open where we can all see you and draw our own conclusions. You may prefer that believe that we all disagree with you because we are part of a secret cabal, but at some point you should really open yourself up to considering the alternative, that you are just plain wrong about this.
I understand your point of view completely. I've read it in detail, and I've responded to it. Freedom of speech does not include the ability to force other people to replicate your communication against their will. Your co-argument, that everyone wants to relay your transactions, but Gavin has tricked them into rejecting them because they are just plain too stupid to change their config variables is insulting to pretty much everyone, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking it.
The hilarious thing is that long ago, there was a free transaction relay network. Some people didn't like fees, so they set their nodes to relay unlimited free transactions, and they set their miners to mine them. They published a list of nodes that you could connect to that would ensure that even low priority or non-standard transactions would get to a miner that would include them eventually. You could have taken that approach, organizing volunteers to support your cause. But you didn't. You chose instead to talk shit on the forums, and in doing so, I think you've driven off pretty much everyone that was once sympathetic to you.
1) I like how you paint me to think of you in a secret cult or something. That is far from the truth, do I think that people think the dev core team is some higher power, yes. I seen it be said on the forums before. So that is false.
2) No I am not saying anyone has to do anything. I even said the opposite, but you didn't read that part
. I do think people aren't as smart as you give them credit. Some people don't understand .conf files. My friend who is a very smart person setup the .conf file correctly but never restarted his bitcoind so it had no effect. Then I had to redownload his blockchain for him cause he wants to support the movement. So yes alot of people don't understand .conf files. They aren't that easy.3) Actually I did setup something like that
I even contacted huge miners. So I don't get where this shit talking on this forum happen, you can't point it out? Yes I am going to fight back when I am called a name, like anyone here would, or when someone ask the same question 3 times in a row.As I said I am wealthy person, I could easily leave this forum and community and live a nice life. But everyday I am on here help people start business, helping people get to the level I am. I am out on the streets getting coffee shops and dry cleaning to accept bitcoins. Yet cause we different from opinions you go on this tangent of how I must be stupid or dumb. Well I must be one dumb person to not even know how to make money, or that I have an opinion about a technology I am passionate about. So I am not going to fight anymore I am going to just do what I can behind the scenes to fix this and not even response to this thread anymore. Clearly no one here shares my opinion and that qualifies me for being an idiot and dumb.
And the more you say it doesn't make it right. No one has explained why it is spam? It isn't spam, when I started with bitcoin, micro-transactions were welcomed. And at that point they were worth less than they are worth now. So what changed, the core dev team can't fix the blockchain and don't want to deal with it.
I see that you joined about two weeks after SD started. Now I am not blaming SD, but I think that their business model first highlighted the effect upon the Bitcoin network of many 'legitimate' micro-transactions. Clearly a few are always tolerable, but before SD they were rare, unless they were part of a deliberate spamming attack, and overall volumes small enough that it did not matter. SD has improved a lot with its minimum (0.0005 BTC, I believe). The 0.8.2 changes reduces the risk of other pseudo-legitimate sources of high-volume micro-transactions emerging.
There are possible optimizations for blockchain handling, such as the one maaku is working on, but it is still some time off yet.
No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
I love the brain wash of the core dev team. So how did transactions get slow because of micro-transactions? It never did it was always a free market. Also how does it spam the blockchain? It doesn't, maybe instead of brainwashing people the core dev team should start actually fixing the blockchain, which has been broken, due to the lack of attention it gets. The most important part of bitcoin and it doesn't get any attention kind sad.
It spams the uxto which is normally kept in memory.
The core dev team is actually pretty good compared with most open source projects, but is still vulnerable to a 51% consensus attack...
It doesnt matter tho, because losses to bitcoin will be gains to alt currencies.
It's competition fair and square.
I am sorry to break it to you but it has never been fair. They have too much power, and sadly no one wants to fork it, so some of us have to deal with it.
No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
I love the brain wash of the core dev team. So how did transactions get slow because of micro-transactions? It never did it was always a free market. Also how does it spam the blockchain? It doesn't, maybe instead of brainwashing people the core dev team should start actually fixing the blockchain, which has been broken, due to the lack of attention it gets. The most important part of bitcoin and it doesn't get any attention kind sad.
Micro-transactions spam the blockchain, and it does not matter if you repeat the opposite a thousand times, like a Tibetan mantra, you are still wrong.
And the more you say it doesn't make it right. No one has explained why it is spam? It isn't spam, when I started with bitcoin, micro-transactions were welcomed. And at that point they were worth less than they are worth now. So what changed, the core dev team can't fix the blockchain and don't want to deal with it.
No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
I love the brain wash of the core dev team. So how did transactions get slow because of micro-transactions? It never did it was always a free market. Also how does it spam the blockchain? It doesn't, maybe instead of brainwashing people the core dev team should start actually fixing the blockchain, which has been broken, due to the lack of attention it gets. The most important part of bitcoin and it doesn't get any attention kind sad.
Micro-transactions spam the blockchain, and it does not matter if you repeat the opposite a thousand times, like a Tibetan mantra, you are still wrong.
No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
I love the brain wash of the core dev team. So how did transactions get slow because of micro-transactions? It never did it was always a free market. Also how does it spam the blockchain? It doesn't, maybe instead of brainwashing people the core dev team should start actually fixing the blockchain, which has been broken, due to the lack of attention it gets. The most important part of bitcoin and it doesn't get any attention kind sad.
It spams the uxto which is normally kept in memory.
The core dev team is actually pretty good compared with most open source projects, but is still vulnerable to a 51% consensus attack...
It doesnt matter tho, because losses to bitcoin will be gains to alt currencies.
It's competition fair and square.
No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
I love the brain wash of the core dev team. So how did transactions get slow because of micro-transactions? It never did it was always a free market. Also how does it spam the blockchain? It doesn't, maybe instead of brainwashing people the core dev team should start actually fixing the blockchain, which has been broken, due to the lack of attention it gets. The most important part of bitcoin and it doesn't get any attention kind sad.
I am trying to talk to them and get them to join, but their greedy eyes are wider. I am also thinking of taking $500,000 of my own money and investing in ASIC miners and doing mining myself. I am stilling thinking about that option cause $500,000 would make a tough year for me, but I am so passionate about the community I would do it.
So what happens when your miner get flooded with micro-transactions and it can't cope?What you mean get flooded, I would try and mine as many as I could, I am still limited in block size. So while I don't have a direct answer if your talking about scale I can easily scale as I have done with my bitcoind getting flood with payments. If your talking about mining all these micro-transactions, I would try my best.
I am trying to talk to them and get them to join, but their greedy eyes are wider. I am also thinking of taking $500,000 of my own money and investing in ASIC miners and doing mining myself. I am stilling thinking about that option cause $500,000 would make a tough year for me, but I am so passionate about the community I would do it.
If you do, I wish you luck. More competition is better than less. Just choose wisely with the field of scammers out there in the ASIC arena.
While Bitcoin may be an anarchy of sorts, it is certainly not a democracy in the traditional majoritarian sense. I still don't see how Gavin is a dictator. It is more like the community of miners are an oligarchy. There's nothing forcing them going along with Gavin's ideas other than their seeming belief that it is in their interest to do so.
People generally do act in their own interest when money is concerned, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. It seems the more configurable the Bitcoin client is, the more capable people are of doing whatever they want with it, even if that is not what Gavin wants. Anyone doing mining is, I think, entirely capable of deviating from the default settings and, in fact, will probably have to do so just to get it to work with their systems unless they are operating with systems straight out of the box.
It just strikes me that if there is a market demand for "dust" transactions, people will figure out how to do it. After all, once it is actually in the blockchain, it is going to continue to get confirms. It's just that first step, which only requires ONE miner willing to include these things in mined blocks.
I am like half agree with this. As I said this isn't something you do on a dream. I really have to think and see happens.
No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.
I can no l0nger use bitcoin on either a mac or windows. I cant even install the client on windows without errors and my mac is unuseable with bitcoin-qt. Yes you should boycott it, because the coding is fucking shit.
Try Linux.He shouldn't have to try anything. The core development team, doesn't even code anymore they all do work for other bitcoin companies and have lost focus on what is really important.
But... Linux is imo plain old way better than those OS's are. Why should bitcoin bow to inferior operating systems? Popular use is cool, but I'd be happier about 10% of all linux users using btc than 11% of windows users using it. (Note that i have no idea what these numbers actually imply.)
Considering Mac is on par with linux I don't care about either one of them. I have even removed bitcoind from my servers, I built my own client using bitcoinj.
Jump to: