Topic: POLL: Allow dust transactions in Bitcoin? (5430 satoshis or less) - page 2. (Read 5167 times)
December 04, 2014, 01:58:49 PM
can someone post the link to Gavin statemant about this?
December 04, 2014, 01:51:06 PM
I raise this thread from the dead because as a developer, I am being affected by this issue and I want to make my opinion heard even if some people have already decided that this issue has been resolved already.
I choose ACCEPT AND RELAY because the sender pays to the miner anyway according to the final size of the transaction. it is the size used up in the block chain and only that size in combination with the fee paid to miners that should matter. The sender should be free to do whatever they want in the transaction as long as they pay the minimal fee to miners.
But why would anyone send such a small amount of bitcoins that couldn't be spent? Easy: to save a Proof of Existence in the block chain! Why not use OP_RETURN you might ask? Because anything behind OP_RETURN is non-standard anyway and can be pruned later. Proof of Existence is meant to be forever, and must not be pruned in any way ever.
I choose ACCEPT AND RELAY because the sender pays to the miner anyway according to the final size of the transaction. it is the size used up in the block chain and only that size in combination with the fee paid to miners that should matter. The sender should be free to do whatever they want in the transaction as long as they pay the minimal fee to miners.
But why would anyone send such a small amount of bitcoins that couldn't be spent? Easy: to save a Proof of Existence in the block chain! Why not use OP_RETURN you might ask? Because anything behind OP_RETURN is non-standard anyway and can be pruned later. Proof of Existence is meant to be forever, and must not be pruned in any way ever.
You are looking at a small picture, not the big picture. Also please re-read all D&T's posts.
The block limit needs to be increased and IBLT implemented within new block propagation before micro-tx become even more common.
Then this thread might deserve to be raised from the dead.
December 04, 2014, 08:17:37 AM
I raise this thread from the dead because as a developer, I am being affected by this issue and I want to make my opinion heard even if some people have already decided that this issue has been resolved already.
I choose ACCEPT AND RELAY because the sender pays to the miner anyway according to the final size of the transaction. it is the size used up in the block chain and only that size in combination with the fee paid to miners that should matter. The sender should be free to do whatever they want in the transaction as long as they pay the minimal fee to miners.
But why would anyone send such a small amount of bitcoins that couldn't be spent? Easy: to save a Proof of Existence in the block chain! Why not use OP_RETURN you might ask? Because anything behind OP_RETURN is non-standard anyway and can be pruned later. Proof of Existence is meant to be forever, and must not be pruned in any way ever.
I choose ACCEPT AND RELAY because the sender pays to the miner anyway according to the final size of the transaction. it is the size used up in the block chain and only that size in combination with the fee paid to miners that should matter. The sender should be free to do whatever they want in the transaction as long as they pay the minimal fee to miners.
But why would anyone send such a small amount of bitcoins that couldn't be spent? Easy: to save a Proof of Existence in the block chain! Why not use OP_RETURN you might ask? Because anything behind OP_RETURN is non-standard anyway and can be pruned later. Proof of Existence is meant to be forever, and must not be pruned in any way ever.
June 24, 2013, 07:06:24 PM
A contract like "I hearby declare that this 1,000,000 Satoshis deposited via transaction A in address B represent stocks of my company XY and everybody holding them has the right on dividends and voting" would allow me to run stocks of my company based on what is 0.01Ƀ worth of bitcoins to you but a million stocks to me and my fellows. How can you declare storing these stocks not economical?
Just scale it up so that the per-share amout of satoshis is higher than the dust threshold. So instead of one satoshi per share, make it 10,000 (Approx. 1 penny at this time) per share. Then everything works again. Since, by you own admission, these shares have non-negligible economic value, tying up a larger (still very small) amount of money to each share doesn't harm you at all.
June 24, 2013, 07:04:01 PM
Well then the 0.8.2 doesn't solve any problem. If you don't make the fees scale with the costs, things make no sense. Anybody may include garbage and take a fee or not for that and for all eternity people have to deal with this extra data. We should just assume to have full blocks and miners should include transactions based on the fee in relation to the costs for the network and not in relation to some assumed economic value of that particular transaction.
Well do. MOST miners and nodes are NOT going to relay uneconomical garbage. The reason is the UXTO is the critical resource it can't be pruned and to perform high speed validation it should be in memory (or as much in memory as possible). The creation of outputs that likely will never be spent bloats the UXTO and that makes the entire network less efficient. Miners pay a perpetual cost that can't be pruned away. If they are rational they won't include spammy garbage.
June 24, 2013, 06:36:17 PM
I'm slightly confused not to see a single mention of colored bitoins in this thread.
Colored bitcoins take one transaction as the genesis transaction of, lets say, a stock. Now the output of this transaction has dust value to you but maybe great value to a stock owner.
A contract like "I hearby declare that this 1,000,000 Satoshis deposited via transaction A in address B represent stocks of my company XY and everybody holding them has the right on dividends and voting" would allow me to run stocks of my company based on what is 0.01Ƀ worth of bitcoins to you but a million stocks to me and my fellows. How can you declare storing these stocks not economical?
I guess this kind of alternative uses for Bitcoin were intended and do good to the overall legitimacy of Bitcoin. Sure, if we not only "destroy the banks" but at the same time "destroy the stock exchanges", the establishment might get slightly mader, so maybe we should keep this bullet for the next round.
Colored bitcoins take one transaction as the genesis transaction of, lets say, a stock. Now the output of this transaction has dust value to you but maybe great value to a stock owner.
A contract like "I hearby declare that this 1,000,000 Satoshis deposited via transaction A in address B represent stocks of my company XY and everybody holding them has the right on dividends and voting" would allow me to run stocks of my company based on what is 0.01Ƀ worth of bitcoins to you but a million stocks to me and my fellows. How can you declare storing these stocks not economical?
I guess this kind of alternative uses for Bitcoin were intended and do good to the overall legitimacy of Bitcoin. Sure, if we not only "destroy the banks" but at the same time "destroy the stock exchanges", the establishment might get slightly mader, so maybe we should keep this bullet for the next round.
Then find someone willing to relay and mine it. Problem solved.
Nothing in 0.8.2 PREVENTS you from doing that. Some people might not share your view that it is a beneficial use of a critical resource. Should they be forced to relay and mine your transactions?
0.8.2. doesn't make any transaction regardless of size prohibited. No block will be rejected even if it is 100% full of spammy garbage.
However just because you have FREEDOM of speech doesn't mean others have an OBLIGATION to listen. Likewise just because you can create spammy garbage doesn't mean that other nodes should be forced to relay it.
Well then the 0.8.2 doesn't solve any problem. If you don't make the fees scale with the costs, things make no sense. Anybody may include garbage and take a fee or not for that and for all eternity people have to deal with this extra data. We should just assume to have full blocks and miners should include transactions based on the fee in relation to the costs for the network and not in relation to some assumed economic value of that particular transaction.
June 24, 2013, 05:33:52 PM
I'm slightly confused not to see a single mention of colored bitoins in this thread.
Colored bitcoins take one transaction as the genesis transaction of, lets say, a stock. Now the output of this transaction has dust value to you but maybe great value to a stock owner.
A contract like "I hearby declare that this 1,000,000 Satoshis deposited via transaction A in address B represent stocks of my company XY and everybody holding them has the right on dividends and voting" would allow me to run stocks of my company based on what is 0.01Ƀ worth of bitcoins to you but a million stocks to me and my fellows. How can you declare storing these stocks not economical?
I guess this kind of alternative uses for Bitcoin were intended and do good to the overall legitimacy of Bitcoin. Sure, if we not only "destroy the banks" but at the same time "destroy the stock exchanges", the establishment might get slightly mader, so maybe we should keep this bullet for the next round.
Colored bitcoins take one transaction as the genesis transaction of, lets say, a stock. Now the output of this transaction has dust value to you but maybe great value to a stock owner.
A contract like "I hearby declare that this 1,000,000 Satoshis deposited via transaction A in address B represent stocks of my company XY and everybody holding them has the right on dividends and voting" would allow me to run stocks of my company based on what is 0.01Ƀ worth of bitcoins to you but a million stocks to me and my fellows. How can you declare storing these stocks not economical?
I guess this kind of alternative uses for Bitcoin were intended and do good to the overall legitimacy of Bitcoin. Sure, if we not only "destroy the banks" but at the same time "destroy the stock exchanges", the establishment might get slightly mader, so maybe we should keep this bullet for the next round.
Then find someone willing to relay and mine it. Problem solved.
Nothing in 0.8.2 PREVENTS you from doing that. Some people might not share your view that it is a beneficial use of a critical resource. Should they be forced to relay and mine your transactions?
0.8.2. doesn't make any transaction regardless of size prohibited. No block will be rejected even if it is 100% full of spammy garbage.
However just because you have FREEDOM of speech doesn't mean others have an OBLIGATION to listen. Likewise just because you can create spammy garbage doesn't mean that other nodes should be forced to relay it.
June 24, 2013, 05:30:10 PM
Is it possible for the network to reject a mined block if it doesn't include a high enough sum of transaction fees?
In other words - if a miner accepts too-low of a fee is it possible for the rest of the network to reject that miner's solution?
In other words - if a miner accepts too-low of a fee is it possible for the rest of the network to reject that miner's solution?
No. That is why this is all a much ado about nothing.
If people want to create sub dust transactions, then they can find people willing to relay and mine them. Problem solved. The dust threshold is merely a default. It doesn't invalidate any blocks.
The reality (and the need for the gnashing of teeth and FUD about the death of Bitcoin) is some people simply WANT to spam the network with transactions which will NEVER be redeemed. They also want to do it for free and have the cost of keeping those transactions in the UXTO forever paid by someone else.
June 24, 2013, 04:56:33 PM
I'm slightly confused not to see a single mention of colored bitoins in this thread.
Colored bitcoins take one transaction as the genesis transaction of, lets say, a stock. Now the output of this transaction has dust value to you but maybe great value to a stock owner.
A contract like "I hearby declare that this 1,000,000 Satoshis deposited via transaction A in address B represent stocks of my company XY and everybody holding them has the right on dividends and voting" would allow me to run stocks of my company based on what is 0.01Ƀ worth of bitcoins to you but a million stocks to me and my fellows. How can you declare storing these stocks not economical?
I guess this kind of alternative uses for Bitcoin were intended and do good to the overall legitimacy of Bitcoin. Sure, if we not only "destroy the banks" but at the same time "destroy the stock exchanges", the establishment might get slightly mader, so maybe we should keep this bullet for the next round.
Colored bitcoins take one transaction as the genesis transaction of, lets say, a stock. Now the output of this transaction has dust value to you but maybe great value to a stock owner.
A contract like "I hearby declare that this 1,000,000 Satoshis deposited via transaction A in address B represent stocks of my company XY and everybody holding them has the right on dividends and voting" would allow me to run stocks of my company based on what is 0.01Ƀ worth of bitcoins to you but a million stocks to me and my fellows. How can you declare storing these stocks not economical?
I guess this kind of alternative uses for Bitcoin were intended and do good to the overall legitimacy of Bitcoin. Sure, if we not only "destroy the banks" but at the same time "destroy the stock exchanges", the establishment might get slightly mader, so maybe we should keep this bullet for the next round.
June 24, 2013, 04:25:58 PM
Is it possible for the network to reject a mined block if it doesn't include a high enough sum of transaction fees?
In other words - if a miner accepts too-low of a fee is it possible for the rest of the network to reject that miner's solution?
In other words - if a miner accepts too-low of a fee is it possible for the rest of the network to reject that miner's solution?
June 24, 2013, 04:23:51 PM
The fundamental problem is negative externalities.
The dust-spender doesn't pay the cost of the transaction.
There should be a default transaction cost that's a best-guess of the actual cost of a dust transaction. Mining software should default to reject transactions with smaller fees.
The dust-spender doesn't pay the cost of the transaction.
There should be a default transaction cost that's a best-guess of the actual cost of a dust transaction. Mining software should default to reject transactions with smaller fees.
June 24, 2013, 04:11:33 PM
When BTC is trading at over $1000, they'll change the rules regarding dust transactions so that it's value is sub-cent again.
Logic.
Logic.
Sounds a bit like what happened in cypress tbh. I honestly don't think the attraction of bitcoin was that "they" could change the rules as they go.
If that sounds "like Cypress" then you probably need to read more.
Example.
Today in v0.8.2 the default min fee on low priority tx is 0.1mBTC (10,000 S) and thus the dust threshold is 5,430 S.
Current exchange rate ~$100 thus the min fee on low priority tx is ~$0.01 and dust threshold is ~$0.005 (half a penny).
Some day in the future the exchange rate has risen to $2,500 and thus some future version of the client has lowered the min mandatory fee on low priority tx to 0.004 mBTC (400 S). This makes the dust threshold 217 S. The purchasing power of those amounts are still ~$0.01 and $0.005.
Now how exact is that "like Cypress"?
Maybe. But a currency that requires people to 'read more' is never going to be a currency that's widely accepted.
Here's how it's like cypress: a small group of people can suddenly decide to change things without consumers having any recourse. Currencies aren't about 'reading more' they are about usability and trust. Me and the rest of the world don't want to read more. We want to buy and sell stuff. Any hurdle you put in front of us is to the detriment of your currency.
It doesn't have to be like cypress to put people off but if it feels/sounds like it people will be put off. External intervention/meddling sets off my spidey senses. If you can't figure out a way to deal with the dust with out banning it then we may as well give up now. As someone posted above the 'dust' becomes significant if bitcoin's price rises. Makes me laugh that one of the accepted solutions is that people should stop using bitcoin and use litecoin instead. Seriously, I think some of you can't see the forest for the trees. You are dooming this currency.
Here's a saying I've always found to be true: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
imho that's what's happening now.
Look at the poll results. I'm not alone.
June 24, 2013, 03:44:59 PM
Wow. You are patient D&T
This is the sort of business which off-chain solutions can do (like fidelity-bonded chaum banks). If off-chain doesn't work for this - then it is a complete failure and we had better hope that Bitcoin scaling software solutions can deal with a super-big blockchain.
I'm undecided, but I worry about the impact on the use of coloured coins.
This is the sort of business which off-chain solutions can do (like fidelity-bonded chaum banks). If off-chain doesn't work for this - then it is a complete failure and we had better hope that Bitcoin scaling software solutions can deal with a super-big blockchain.
June 24, 2013, 03:41:30 PM
I'm undecided, but I'm also worried about the impact on the use of coloured coins.
June 24, 2013, 03:39:34 PM
When BTC is trading at over $1000, they'll change the rules regarding dust transactions so that it's value is sub-cent again.
Logic.
Logic.
Sounds a bit like what happened in cypress tbh. I honestly don't think the attraction of bitcoin was that "they" could change the rules as they go.
If that sounds "like Cypress" then you probably need to read more.
Example.
Today in v0.8.2 the default min fee on low priority tx is 0.1mBTC (10,000 S) and thus the dust threshold is 5,430 S.
Current exchange rate ~$100 thus the min fee on low priority tx is ~$0.01 and dust threshold is ~$0.005 (half a penny).
Some day in the future the exchange rate has risen to $2,500 and thus some future version of the client has lowered the min mandatory fee on low priority tx to 0.004 mBTC (400 S). This makes the dust threshold 217 S. The purchasing power of those amounts are still ~$0.01 and $0.005.
Now how exact is that "like Cypress"?
June 24, 2013, 03:33:32 PM
When BTC is trading at over $1000, they'll change the rules regarding dust transactions so that it's value is sub-cent again.
Logic.
Logic.
Sounds a bit like what happened in cypress tbh. I honestly don't think the attraction of bitcoin was that "they" could change the rules as they go.
June 24, 2013, 03:24:44 PM
How are they going to adjust the dust amount on the fly when BTC are trading at $650 USD on week and $200 USD the next week? Maybe letting miners decide what to include in the block chain instead of hard coding it into the software perhaps? I thought the whole point of this system was to let the market determine what works and to avoid using some human decree as the law of the land.
It isn't hardcoded it is based on min mandatory tx fee. If a node is set to only relay/mine low priority tx with a min mandatory of 0.1 mBTC (10,000 S) then the dust is 54.3% of that (5430). IF a node is set to relay/mine low priority txs with a min mandatory fee of 0.01 (1,000 S) then the dust is 54.3% of that (543 S). If a node is set to relay/mine low priority txs with a min fee of 0 mBTC (0 S) then the dust is 54.3% of that (0 S).
If miner X won't accept include low priority tx without a fee of Y then that same miner will reject tx which attempt to create transactions that are less than half of Y.
June 24, 2013, 03:19:33 PM
When BTC is trading at over $1000 all of that "dust" is going to be worth alot. If I can only use BTC to transfer large amounts of cash I would be using it much less than I am now.
When BTC is trading at over $1000, they'll change the rules regarding dust transactions so that it's value is sub-cent again.
Logic.
How are they going to adjust the dust amount on the fly when BTC are trading at $650 USD on week and $200 USD the next week? Maybe letting miners decide what to include in the block chain instead of hard coding it into the software perhaps? I thought the whole point of this system was to let the market determine what works and to avoid using some human decree as the law of the land.
It will get changed with new versions of software and the devs will average the recent fx rate to determine the dust value.
It is utterly irrelevant that the dust value might be equivalent to 0.65c one week and 0.2c the next. If Bitcoin is a world-beating currency then dicking around with sub-cent transactions is like mostly using your Ferrari to go down your driveway to collect your mail.
June 24, 2013, 03:01:22 PM
When BTC is trading at over $1000 all of that "dust" is going to be worth alot. If I can only use BTC to transfer large amounts of cash I would be using it much less than I am now.
When BTC is trading at over $1000, they'll change the rules regarding dust transactions so that it's value is sub-cent again.
Logic.
How are they going to adjust the dust amount on the fly when BTC are trading at $650 USD on week and $200 USD the next week? Maybe letting miners decide what to include in the block chain instead of hard coding it into the software perhaps? I thought the whole point of this system was to let the market determine what works and to avoid using some human decree as the law of the land.
June 24, 2013, 11:33:30 AM
I'm away from my QT wallet right now, but I remember yesterday trying to send 0.5 BTC and I got a message saying the transaction would cost an extra 0.15 to process. I can check this again once I am near that computer again. I was under the assumption that in order to process the 0.5 transaction I was paying fees for the several previous transactions of under 5000 satoshis.
Jump to: