Topic: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs (Read 58538 times)

LMAO really? LMAO They aren't bad, this is computers not mints. Dust outputs don't take up any more space than a 100BTC transaction. They are painted bad cause the core developers can't fix the blockchain so that is the problem not the dust. That is like itunes saying we aren't going to allow any music less than 30 Secs. It makes no sense.


Actually it does have grounds in facts, the bitcoin-qt adds dust on top of fees when it picking out balances to send. I am not having a bad day at all really.

Cause some people don't care about alt currencies, I like bitcoin, with the settings that accepted when I downloaded bitcoin-qt in 2011

Honestly that will be a waste of time...


Dust is added to fees when your trying to spend your coins. So basically they are just to help miners become richer.

I don't want to store any transaction over 100 coins, they waste space on my hard drive. I hope they block them soon. Scalability isn't an issue in P2P models, and storage is so inexpensive.

I guess moore laws don't exist anymore in bitcoin land. When bitcoin has no laws, it doesn't mean moores law doesn't apply either.

Also notice how there is a service put up by a dude that uses the same handle as you that does facilitate just that .

http://inputs.io

you're welcome.

you're feeding the troll and so am I.

happy, troll?

You can use offchain transactions. They also solve the problem of dust.

The first confirmation occurs when a transaction is included in a block.
When another block is built, no mention is made of that transaction, but there is a link to the previous block.  This block is the 2nd confirmation.

The transaction size depends on how many inputs and outputs it has.  In general each input is the same size, no matter how much it is worth.  
The transactions are released cryptographically.  There is some computation used for this, but that amount of computation is negligible.  Compare it with the effort to sign a check, compared with the subsequent handling of that check.

The situation with dust is analogous to writing checks for $0.000 000 054.  Such a check consumes paper worth more than the amount paid.  It is a pesky nuisance.

Of course, we don't do that.  I don't know if there was minimum check size in Zimbabwe, but imagine writing a check for 1 Zimbabwe dollar.  Or imagine a merchant who has some griefer who always pays in boxes of Zimbabwe dollar bills.

Yes you must send full outputs.  The amount "at" each address is irrelivent.  Bitcoin works on a concept of outputs.  Outputs are either spent or unpsent.  Unpent outputs becomes inputs for new transactions and in the process are spent.  So I will correct your example and say you have a wallet which has receive 2BTC and 1 BTC.  You wish to pay someone 1.999999 BTC.

The client will attempt to avoid spam at all cost.  As such it will create a tx like this:

The 1 BTC & 2BTC outputs are now spent (and thus will be pruned from UXTO).
Your wallet would now have a single unspent output worth 1.000001 BTC.


I am guessing you are wondering next what happens if you only had a single 2 BTC input.

The tx would look like this:

Since the creation of a 0.000001 BTC output would create dust the client will simply not create it.  In any tx the difference between inputs and outputs is the fee.  Note fees are not explicitly defined in ANY transaction they are just the difference between the tx inputs and outputs.

would that now take twice as many confirmations=approximately doubling the amount of computational power NYC;)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iyDQQb2ses

I'm curious about a particular situation involving change values.

Say I have a wallet with 2 addresses.
Each address has received 1BTC, for a total of 2BTC in the wallet.

Say I then want to send 1.999999 to someone. 

As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong here, looking to learn, not to pick fights), I would end up sending the full 2BTC, and then receive the change back.
Now, I know I'm not including the transaction fee in this scenario.  This is really just a thought exercise with regard to the handling of tiny change values.

Would the transaction be blocked because 1.999999 went to one address, but a tiny amount 0.000001 was also in there? 
For the sake of consideration, assume the transaction fee is included in that 1.999999, so that amount paid + tx fee results in the tiny change.

How is this handled?

Moore's Law isn't magic.  It reflects that people push back against wastes of CPU time, disk storage, and other limitations to push technology to its physical limits.  Processor speeds don't just magically increase.  Disk storage doesn't just magically increase.  The assumptions underlying Moore's Law (which isn't a real law) involve bean-counters identifying and eliminating wastes of resources that slow down systems and break them, just as much as they involve people inventing new technologies.

The threat from dust transactions may be on the un-glamorous, bean-counting side of technological improvement, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Not really. Your involvement only discredits anything you refer to. Digging in deep isn't posting bullshit to general forums when you clearly have no clue what you're talking about and that could be cleared up by reading a FAQ.

"My initial impression is that you have not done your background reading that any journalist is expected to do.
You are using language that I have not seen anywhere else, i.e., you are making up sensationalistic jargon of your own. "



yes it's called being a writer, if you like read this : http://rc3.org/2009/07/30/stealing-a-penny-from-every-transaction/


i'm part of the bitcoin foundation network and i've been invited to attend the upcoming NYC event on July 30th so i'm digging in deep here NYC;)

My initial impression is that you have not done your background reading that any journalist is expected to do.
You are using language that I have not seen anywhere else, i.e., you are making up sensationalistic jargon of your own.

So, you should read Satoshi's white paper.  It is a short read, and it is the reference for what bitcoins are.

It is completely unexpected to ask about "mystery blocks."  The block chain is the complete history of bitcoin from the first transaction.  There is a parser on-line, and it can be viewed by anyone in the world.  It the totally transparent.  Again, you are using sensational language where is in misleading.

Again, you have not done your background homework.  Blockchain.info lets you examine the entirety of the blockchain.

As you would need to do in any effort to report on any subject whatsoever, you must come to the table willing to learn, willing to listen, willing to find facts first, and make judgments second, not the other way around.

If you want to have some questions answered, the community will be glad to help you if you will meet us honestly and learn our answers, not misquote us.

Is it a good idea, if the majority doesn't support your idea?
Would you be happier if I send you 10,000,000,000x 0.00000001 BTC or 1x 100 BTC?


I think it was a mistake of the developers to change the client mode from 0.00 to 0.00000000 displaying - it resulted in many transactions that are too expensive to be used. You seem to be complaining about the developers, the foundation, etc. and you're talking about your ideas, but you're not implementing them. Can YOU "fix the blockchain"? I can't do that, but I'm not here to complain.

Users are paying for iTunes so it doesn't cost them more - and it's not like iTunes will download all songs to your local disk… I'm pretty sure, people would mine your transaction if you include a 0.1 BTC transaction fee!

gm Eri:
please read the bitcoin on two computers thread-> it explains how bitcoins can be destroyed.
Bitcoin is still in the early development stage and there is pressure from guv officials and others who want to create more backdoors to the software. This is what i mean about making the rules up as you go along.
Bitcoin is being pitched to Wall Street as some kind of established dirty commodity.
I've been surfing on the internet since 1995, and have several family members who worked for ibm so i know a little about computer stuff.
Hoarding / satoshi mystery blocks held by insiders does not settle well with me at all , bitcoin needs to be more spread out for it to be embraced by the masses.
Bitcoin technical discussions do remind me of rocket scientists' banter.
Call it what you will the fact is the United States created TOR which is where most bitcoins are used for illegal items and services : child exploitation, hacking, hitman / swat service etc etc.  
I'd like to see some evidence that those "ghost" coins that haven't moved in awhile are because people are saving them or forgot about them etc. I suspect some of them are actually held by online "monsters" and were generated when bitcoin was considered only a "game token".
Nobody i am aware of even wants fees, they use bitcoin because they yearn to be FREE.

Don't get m.a.d. get glad, don't get angry get prepared for your argument NYC;)




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Gr1DwvTvI

You have to look at it long-term. Dust outputs won't get spent. 100BTC outputs will get spent and pruned.

Well no you already know that dust has nothing to do with blockchain size but EVERYTHING to do with UXTO bloat.  Dust (or a very high probability of dust approaching 1) won't be spent thus it remains in the UXTO.  For normal economic transactions the UXTO only grows linearly (related more to the number of discrete entities not total transactions over time).  This is good because the UXTO is a far more critical resource than the unpruned blockchain.   It is highly likely that in the future most full nodes won't even maintain the full blockchain but they will need the entire UXTO.

Having tiny worthless transactions which last forever in the UXTO lowers the efficiency of every node, forever.

Of course you already knew all this but since you love to feign ignorance this correction is more to ensure others aren't mislead.