Topic: Dust threshold changed without any mention in 0.11.1 - page 2. (Read 6002 times)

BIP70 which is for payment requests, allows both the customer and the merchant to attach memos to payments, although I don't think that these memos will be stored in the blockchain. However, AFAIK those memos do stay where you really need them, in your wallet. You don't need (or want) everyone to know what you were spending your Bitcoin on, which is what encoding those memos into transactions in the blockcahin would do.

There's a difference between a fine and a fee you know. Bitcoin has fees. University had fines. You can't compare these two.

Who are you to dictate what is proper and what is not anyway? With the university it is at least explicit that the girl was doing the wrong thing. Can't say the same about bitcoin.

By the way, all normal money transferring methods allow you to attach a message to the payment. Bitcoin failed to provide such capabilities as a built-in feature. It makes so much sense to encode payment details in the bitcoin transaction and it isn't even wrong. How on Earth can you call encoding payment details in bitcoin TX an abusive behaviour when ALL BANKS ALLOW THIS on their centralized ledgers. That's it. My last sentence just demolished all arguments of any opponent to encoding payment details in the BTC TXs.

Ah, this reminds me of a girl at the university who came from a very wealthy family and thought that some rules did not apply to her. There was a reserved parking area which she did not hold a permit for, but she parked there anyway. She would pay her fines and repeat the offense. This went on for quite some time before the university was fed up and made it a point to tow the vehicles of repeate offenders.

The purpose of the reserved lot wasn’t there to bring in additional revenue for the university from those who can afford to violate the rules and pay the fines. It was there to serve the needs of those who were designated to use it.

The same can be applied to Bitcoin; abusing the system because you can afford to pay the fines does not make it OK and should be discouraged.

Keep down on the caffeine, you are on fire ! I was not insulting you.
I say your way of deciding what is considered waste is arbitrary.

_{I am sure pissed off by the sudden Dust change which broke virtually every deployed piece of software responsible for creating a transaction (not only the ones you consider toxic), and the refusal to admit it (which mean it will bit everyone again), but that's another matter.}

That said, I'm not against it, just the pissed by the poor notice time we had for redeploying our customers.


Bitcoin first use is P2Pecash system, then as long as you follow the rule of the consensus, and pay what miners ask, whether it is used as cash or not have no importance.
If the increased usage make fees go up, then the least important use case will be kicked out to other alternatives.
Would you pay 1$ for doing for a graffiti ? I won't.
Graffiti will be kicked out, as well as Satoshidice way before impacting P2Pecash use case. It will go away or transform by the fees and dust.
Sure they are nuisance, but as you said, inconsequential and it will be always inconsequential thanks to fees and dust.

This is why I say fee and dust are an impartial moral authority, no need of judge to punish them.
I'm impatient to see a better way of dealing with dust so we don't get bothered again. (I have seen bluematt PR which is promising)

This topic highlights the issue that even changing a seemingly harmless parameter can break software. Just because this time the software happened to be controversial does not justify what happened. Same thing could happen to any service that utilizes OP_RETURN somehow. This, for example: https://proofofexistence.com/


CryptoGraffiti is not a commercial service. By commercial service you probably mean paystamper.com which is an idea of a guy from the US who contacted me on this forum wishing to monetize cryptograffiti. Cryptograffiti only allows you to convert plaintext into bitcoin addresses (for free). You have to compile and broadcast the TX yourself.

Look at this TX:
https://blockchain.info/tx/828404780e2be4e95ea2d03239193e4b5f17a71998a78d42b4bf4897c4effbe6

Not only has it text embedded in the OP_RETURN (id:barbarbarba.usersusersuserstst8) but it also has 0.00092035 BTC
sent to 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 (unspendable output). So which one is worse? My service requires CAPTCHA to be solved so that real humans have to do work in order to generate unspendable outputs. However, there are systems out there that generate unspendable outputs automatically and potentially in much greater magnitudes than cryptograffiti.

What is more, I am willing to cooperate and help you find a reasonable solution to the problem. I could, for example, require much higher fees for using block chain as data storage and I could send part of the earned profits as donations for the development of bitcoin. So far I haven't earned shit and the bloat generated by my service is nothing in comparison to what satoshidice did. You can verify it yourself by observing the donations I have received:
https://blockchain.info/address/1MVpQJA7FtcDrwKC6zATkZvZcxqma4JixS

Having said all that, I hope to no longer receive unjustified acid from people who are desperate because of the unspendable outputs issue. There are bigger fish to fry than me.

I wasn't even speaking about bitcoin. I was speaking about traditional toxic waste and your yard.   Uranium hexafluoride in alumnium cans, if we must name something specific... My point being that your argument was generic, "Using Nicolas Dorier's lawn for other purposes is not abuse if you are willing to pay the price".  

In any case, going back to Bitcoin, no one is obligated to relay or mine any particular transaction; and might not do so if they think they're harmful by whatever criteria they're using. One need not define anything.

But to your question of "arbitrary", do you intend to insult me?   I do not think it is arbitrary to say that Bitcoin, which was created, operated, maintained, and adopted with the express stated purpose of being an P2Pecash system ... has an intended purpose of being a P2P ecash system, and that use of that that is using the system outside of its stated purpose. By comparison there are alternative networks based on the Bitcoin code base which have stated purposes which explicitly include other things; and, as a point of history, when someone first proposed storing name registrations in the Bitcoin system the system's creator vigorously opposed this and recommended doing so in an alternative network.

Uses which are not related to Bitcoin ecash and instead just ride atop it as a communication/storage channel (or worse, try to explicitly compete with the Bitcoin currency and replace it in the market while using Bitcoin's own network) are a pretty good start.   Case in point, we're in a thread where someone was upset because nodes were blocking transactions of theirs which were creating purposefully unspendable txouts (e.g. adding non-Bitcoin bloat to the UTXO set) in order to run a commercial service called "crypto graffiti" which does what it says on the tin. I think that this is indisputable abusive: It benefits nothing but it's operator/users to the cost of every current and future user of Bitcoin, it uses the system not as an ecash system (which is what virtually all of its users signed up for), but as a messaging and free perpetual data storage layer,  this (data storage) usage potentially risks subjecting node operators to nuisances (e.g. DMCA notices), and even the name acknowledges its nature. ... but on the scale of abusive things it's not very interesting: something can be abusive without being worth worrying about, as the overall behavior of the system already confines the amount of damage to uninteresting levels.  It's only worth mentioning that it's abusive by way of explanation as to why I do not expect this kind of use to be reliable.

How do you define toxic waste exactly ? Any usage which does not use bitcoin as value transfer ? how arbitrary is that ?

That's sadly, the best impartial authority we can get, if you have a suggestion unbiased of personal view about what ought to be considered waste, I'm interested to know. (I'm talking solely about Blockchain use cases, not about technical decisions which help to keep properties of what make bitcoin unique)

So, if I start accepting fees for it... people can leave toxic waste in your yard?  After all... they paid a fee.

Things are not so simple as you make them out to be. One user (drawn from a tiny subset of mostly a dozen people, currently) ... collects a fee then everyone else for all time in the future takes a bandwidth and storage cost.

Fees are a useful mechanism and, at times, an effective tool, but they do not themselves create moral authority or guarantee system survival because they do not and cannot pay the enormous externalities that dominate the system costs and they do not reflect a consensual interaction with all people they might impact.

Since that is part of the coinbase script, it isn't related to creating normal transactions to put data on the blockchain. The coinbase script can have anything you want in there, that is its purpose. But encoding data into addresses or as part of OP_RETURN isn't really something that is condoned.

Using Bitcoin for other than monetary purpose is not abuse if you are willing to pay the price. (may it be either in fees or in dust)
You can't abuse Bitcoin anyway. Some tried, did not worked so much.

I think it was probably a pity that Satoshi actually did that (of course you know it was to show that there was no premine) as unfortunately his approach has been used by others and then extended through other approaches (I even worked out how to encode information in the sigs themselves although I've never actually used it live - come to think of it that is actually perhaps a better approach as it is just reducing the signature entropy a little and doesn't actually waste space).

It is inevitable that such pollution is going to happen and limiting dust is (at least for now) about the only reasonable method to preventing the UTXO set getting too large.

Proof of existence on the block chain. And actually I consider the lion share of my project (see my signature) a decoder not the encoder. I have been monitoring the bitcoin's block chain for human readable text messages and JPG images for nearly 2 years now. The decoding service is not creating any UTXOs. Only the encoding service is creating them and this is up to each user's own moral standards. I am planning to switch to OP_RETURN soon, or at least have this as an alternative option for moralfags those who need it. (edit: since I received a warning from some moderator I don't no longer know what is allowed and what is not, I must admit it's getting Nazi down here but I think I can cooperate)


You are right. In fact I am totally on your side in this. I also hate this loophole and I wish it got fixed somehow. I hate the idea of block chain growing into infinity. And with my actions I hope to draw enough attention on the issue that it actually gets resolved before a malicious entity finds a way to destroy bitcoin using the same loophole. Also, so far my services have not created any noticeable pollution. It's still just a fun educational experiment. For that reason I urge you not to be too mad at me. Also, satoshi nakamoto himself used the block chain in this "abusive" manner by embedding a message for the bankers in the first block. If satoshi didn't want the block chain to be used for other activities than purely monetary transactions then why on earth did he do it? That was a rhetorical question, no need to answer

Just out of curiosity, what are you programming that depends on sending dust? (or at least very small, dust-alike txs)

There would be no point in fighting you about this. It's a loophole of the system and you are using it. On one hand I don't really like it because I'm paying for storage (nodes work for free), on the other hand I hope that if there are enough of such users the blockchain size will grow
so large that:
- it will force into a change in the system,
- or full node numbers dwindle
Both ways, there will be a change.

Hey just because I have my ways with the Bitcoin's block chain right now does not mean I want it to remain that way. There are tons of shitcoins whose block chain I can put into "good use" (should it become irrational with Bitcoin for whatever reason). And again, you're using the word "abuse" on me even though it is not an abuse. It is a very delicate and special form of steganography that I am involved in. And even then, it's pointless to argue about whether it is an abuse or not because all arguments for and against it will always remain subjective and very personal. So we might as well as drop the case. Fact is that bitcoin's block chain is most famous for being an immutable database guarded by the world's most powerful computing network. For that very reason it is an excellent place to store proof-of-existence hashes. Now you call it abusive. I call it ingenious. You want to fight to death over that?

I doubt we will see major modifications to Bitcoin, not because of a lack of interest but because the chances of a massive monetary loss make them a risk too great to take now. Hopefully, sidechains will change that.

Actually, I hope fees become so high that we will only use the Bitcoin as the "peg" and move all the other usages of the blockchain to sidechains. I know you feel entitled
to use the blockchain as a mean to store random stuff but at 2 GB of UTXO, I think Bitcoin isn't friendly towards full nodes anymore.

Maybe if enough people like you & amaclin abuse the system, there will be a change of the consensus rules but I don't think it's on the roadmap.

Ok now we're talking. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, it was a joke. I was ranting and raving not because I hate you but because that's how you get attention in the jungle (Internet).

And I still think that Bitcoin has the theoretical capabilities of dealing with UTXOs on the protocol level without relying on people's good will. For example, implement circular block chain so that older TXs would get thrown away no matter how much coins were left unspent. Also, I would advocate introducing a hybrid PoS/PoW model to bitcoin to boost the full node count and ease the abyss between stakeholders and miners. Right now miners have the ultimate power of writing whatever arbitrary data they want in block headers but I also want to have access to that power without owning an ASIC farm. I want to gain access to that power by holding a shit load of bitcoins. And that would be more fair because thanks to people like me (bitcoin hoarders) it has such a high value in the first place. Miners are bad for the price because they dump the coins but minters are good for the price because they hoard coins to mint more stakes.

Don't look at me: I had no idea bitcoin.org mangled the release notes. Thanks. No one working on Bitcoin core has any control over bitcoin.org, but I'll report it now that you've brought it to my attention.

I didn't contact you, you started this thread with a bunch of accusations and ranting, because -- apparently-- you weren't willing to "pay the price".

And no, just because there is a fine on something doesn't make it appropriate to do just because you're willing to pay the fine.

Please do not address anyone on this subforum in this manner. None of the developers of Bitcoin software owe you anything, and this sort of disrespect is most unwelcome.

Boy what a bad loser you are. End users will read these notes:
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.1

PERIOD, you lost the debate, now get back to work

BTW, you are barking at the wrong tree. I'm not complaining about dust threshold being too high. I am complaining about your incompetence of not being able to insert such an important change into the release notes meant for the end users.

Let me say it again if you still didn't get it --- I LIKE LARGE DUST THRESHOLD BECAUSE I HATE STRESS TESTS AND TX SPAM. So stop portraying me as the bad guy, I am not the stress tester, I am not abuser, I am not the enemy of Bitcoin.

You are misinterpreting (perhaps deliberately) my previous post and your answers only reflect your egomania. I don't think there will ever be a reasonable answer from you in this topic. People full of self-importance are always unable to admit their own flaws because they simply refuse to consider the possibility and it's not even their fault. It's how human mind operates. As species we collectively refuse to accept possibilities that turn our world upside down and thus shatter our egos. Your greatest enemy is inside of you. Be aware of its presence because only then you can sometimes be successful in defeating it.


This is just too good to be left unanswered. You are making me laugh and here's why. You are comparing Bitcoin to our archaic legal system and expect there to be an analogy. For such a world view you should be kicked out from the dev team immediately. You have failed to understand that the brilliance of Bitcoin is the fact that it does not need men with guns backing it up. It is designed to operate without relying on the assumption that its users have high moral standards and righteous intentions. The protocol has to deal with spammers, abusers and stress testers. There are programmatic ways to enforce it and you are just being a lazy programmer who thinks it would be easier to kindly ask anonymous bitcoin users not to generate massive amounts of UTXOs rather than to implement code that solves the issue on the protocol level. If you now say that dust threshold is meant to defend against UTXOs then stop complaining about people who make UTXOs and are willing to pay the price (whatever it is). It's free market.

Data storage has a cost. The field you are putting bitcoin unrelated data is a public key field, it isn't Hyena's-file-sharing-field. It's used to set the rules for coins to be spent in the future. When you start cutting me a paycheck you can start dictating what my job is, but under no condition will it ever be to aid you in your quest in externalizing your data storage costs onto Bitcoin users.

FALSE. Stop lying in my face. When I searched the release notes there were no indication to the minrelaytxfee config parameter and the default value that might have changed as a result. It is pathetic to see you try to cover up this mess. Be an adult and admit that the release notes were lacking that info.