Topic: Boycott 0.8.2 - page 6. (Read 18974 times)

That is impossible, but you won't know that cause you don't have a lawyer or even know the law. It isn't common sense, common sense would tell you that this is censorship and I am being told how to spend my money.



How do you know it is even spam? No I am being told how to spend my money, that is a dictatorship. How is my freedom of speech trampling on your freedom? Is it the freedom of to not buy more hard drive space? LMAO



1) We aren't even talking about fees, but ok.

2) Actually since miners are involved in this change, it is a protocol change, their is really no way around it.

3) Again this protocol change, so I would have to convince miner to mine my transactions

So again I have no choice but to comply with it.


Why is everyone talking about fees, I am talking about micro transactions. It isn't possible. Also this thread has nothing to do with fees, and Gavin has stated that a free market for fees is something he is working on. I like how most of this forum is anti-government but when the core dev team does something that if the government did, we all be freedom of speech but the core dev team does it and we don't even care, go along with it. It just shows this forum, doesn't care what they do.

If you keep spending instead of saving in life, you'll always stay poor.

Real world question: I'm using as many faucets as I can, and I've accumulated .005+ btc.
Using the address in my sig, will I ever be able to spend my btc assuming I continue with these microtransactions? I'm super poor.
I haven't finished reading the thread, btw, so sorry if I missed something.
Halp?

Nodes would not accept that

It's bitcoin protocol. There's no opinions or "various explanations" on it. Also, if you attempt a double spend, all nodes will reject it. If you did some fucking research, you would know that.

I understand that, but would like to have various explanations to a topic because everyone thinks differently. I just don't know how you can verify that the third-party actually had real Bitcoins submitted to it. Why not just invent some Bitcoins and then send them on the chain?

Oh please tell me more. Please be a dictator and tell me how my currency should be used, since apparently I been using it completely wrong. Should I give you my bitcoins so you can spend them for me. LMAO bitcoin is a freedom of speech and I can use it how I want. Also it is a free market and you basically are calling for the end of businesses.

"confirmations" come from transactions being included in a block. With off-the-chain transactions, you're trusting a third party to hold and transmit your dust payments. Also, you should look up the info yourself instead of wasting other forum members' time. Asking answered questions adds clutter to the forum.

Oh OK. So my method basically is an off the chain transaction. However, in my method, due to sending bitcoin to the nodes off the chain, can any transaction out of the node to whomever be confirmed? I don't know how confirmations really work.

that's the definition of off the chain transactions: a trusted third party accumulates (stores) microtransactions and bundles them into big transactions.

How is common sense? Remember this is like Microsoft saying, "hey we can't build a great firewall, so we are turning off the internet in all our OS, but it is temp fix". And technically if you look up censorship it was used properly here.

Could you explain the details of how off-the-chain transactions work? Wasn't aware of such an option.

However, the advantage here is that micro transactions can go on with people who want them. Say 1000 people want to send a satoshi to you. Instead of 1000 meaningless transactions, my method bundles it into one. My method actually works best if the dust limit is raised even higher. However I have noticed that there is a con. Because the node bundles the input into one single wallet, they essentially act as short term banks. They could become prone to attackers wanting to steal the wallets. Only a possibility.

When I was born the smallest denomination of coins in my currency was worth about 0.001 USD.  Everybody agreed it was dumb and an annoyance and a waste of time and wallet space, so we stopped production of the coins.  You can still use them for payment if you have some, but a merchant don't have to accept them.  I don't think many will.

Over the years the same thing happened to the lowest denomination of coins several times.  Last year production of the coin worth ~0.1 USD was stopped.  The lowest denomination now is worth ~0.2 USD.

I can't remember to have heard a single complaint about this.  Nobody wants their pockets to be full of worthless change.  You can collect the coins if you want to, try to spend them if you want to, accept them if you want to.  But people and businesses in general are no longer wasting their time on them.

This is more or less what is happening here.  If you have a special interest for nanotransactions you can still do them with people sharing your interest.  Common users will happily ignore the nanotransactions until someone else mine them, because they are dumb and an annoyance and a waste of our CPU time, network, storage and electricity.

what's the advantage of this over off-the-chain transactions? It's essentially what you're proposing.

No full nodes can still be ran by anyone, I think I will be investing money in having a full node, but not everyone will be able too. Bitcoin was design to keep pace with moore's law, but I think we are out pacing it. So it only makes sense that at some point not everyone will be able to run a full node. This is experiment nothing will be 100%, this is just my view.

I may have a solution for consolidating micro transactions! Literally just came to me.

One Node Processing Multiple Dust Payments to One Person

Say John, Alice, and Kate all want to send microtransactions to Joe. Each one being 0.00000001 BTC. A Satoshi. (In this situation, the network blocks dust transactions of only 1 Satoshi, 2 would pass. This is simply an example.) Because of their low transactions, they won't get processed.

Solution? How about we bundle their transactions using Nodes? We could have a list of nodes set up and displayed somewhere here on the thread, where one could register to be added to the Node's "dustbook".

So if John, Alice, and Kate were to all register with Jacob's Node, when their Satoshi transactions are sent, the Node senses them all, rewrites them, and broadcasts it to the rest of the network as a reverse sendmany transaction to Joe. So the three of them basically bundled their addresses into one virtual "wallet" hosted by the Node only in the instance of the transaction totalling their virtual balance to 0.00000003 BTC, bypassing the 1 Satoshi dust limitation, and Joe gets their dust transactions.

The 1 Satoshi transactions wouldn't be displayed in the blockchain though. Their Satoshis would probably have to be sent directly to the node in some manner, where they then get rebroadcasted in one transaction. It's more efficient than having 3 transactions, and the dust value would go through.

To apply this to Bitcoin's current rules, just simply add more people and a slightly higher value to their transactions.

Graphical Representation:

1John -> JacobNode

1Alice -> JacobNode } JacobNode -> 1Joe

1Kate -> JacobNode

The transactions to JacobNode wouldn't show up in blockchain, but the transaction from the Node to Joe would. The transactions into the Node don't need to be broadcasted because the Node would be able to verify that the addresses have the Bitcoin in the first place because of the blockchain anyways.

Faucet Solution

1 Satoshi dust limit situation

Simply, a faucet would pool up a person's faucet earnings until they passed the dust limit. Or on the faucet site, implement a "Cash Out" button that only becomes available after the 1 Satoshi dust limit is passed.

I prefer it the other way around.
Bob sends me 0.99999980 and I send 1 back. When I remember to. Sometime in the future. Really. I promise.

You can still send micro-transactions even with the default 0.8.2 options, albeit at greater trouble and required trust.

Spammer Alice wants to send user Bob a pointless 0.00000020 BTC.
Alice sends Bob 1.00000000 BTC and then after confirmations, Bob sends back Alice 0.99999980.

Everyones happy.

Well, that's all sorted we can now flag this thread as resolved and locked.

Another major issue is that these micro-transactions basically take up as much of a limited resource (space in a block) as "real" transactions.  I know I get infuriated when I am waiting for a 5 BTC transaction that is actually time-sensitive, waiting for another block, and when it comes, it's filled to the brim with bullshit .0000001 transactions and somehow, my 5 BTC transaction has missed the train despite having a transaction fee.  If the micro-transactions only consumed a commensurate amount of resources to transmit as "real" transactions, there would be less conflict.  As it is, though, often microtransactions with multiple (also tiny) inputs are actually MUCH LARGER than "real" transactions.

That is the most profound statement I have seen on this entire thread so far. Thanks for the clarification.