Topic: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs - page 11. (Read 58546 times)

you're the one with the supposed knowledge, throw out your offer

i'll take the collective knowledge of the millions of dollars on Gox vs whatever knowledge you claim to have while you collect your 0.005 btc advertising fee for a listing on your homepage

It shows how stupid you really are, you said about 10 things just now that didn't make any sense.

"If that's really what you believe, we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that your way of thinking is in line with "the spirit of bitcoin" or what the average user wants."

This right here means you didn't read any of this thread and your points are invalid. The "Spirt of bitcoin" is not to make censorship on the blockchain. That is what this upgrade does. So thank you for your dumb opinion with no research.

since you claim the market is dumb, then i suppose you claim that you know more than the market?

if thats the case, then surely you're willing to place a wager based on your superior knowledge

gweedo, why are you so mad pal?

just because someone else corrected you before me, doesn't make me a follower. if i had read your ridiculousness before the other guy, then i would have been the leader and corrected you first.

the people most afraid that their beliefs are wrong are always the ones screaming the loudest that they are right

the market is not dumb. the market is always right.

you should refrain from calling other people dumb when you don't know the difference between "there" and "their"

stick to programming. perhaps you actually do know about that stuff. but then again, probably not, since you're for hire. good coders are hard to come by and usually locked up

Not the free market, if this was true, then we never have panic sells, that drive the price down. Also no bots would make money. Trust me, I know this stuff, the market is dumb in reactions to certain events.

no argument is needed when you make such a broad, general statement like that and pass it off as truth

edit/
but i guess since you want me to just trust you, fine, i'll take your word for it.

after all, you know this stuff.

trust him^^^

he KNOWS his stuff.

LOL:

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Lets just make up more stuff. I am pretty sure the price didn't drop cause most people don't understand how the regulations will be hurting bitcoins in the long term. The market is dumb, their is a few really smart people in the market, but for the most part, as a whole the market is dumb.

Thanks a bunch.

How would you find it in 19 pages of insinuations about the developers' ulterior motives and such?

It seems "dusty" change outputs will not be created.  If they would be, the dust will just be added to the fee.  Source.

The only thing this thread has taught me is that I'm now a little more uncertain of the future of Bitcoin. I did have high hopes for it, but all this bickering in the community over one patch, people making hard forks etc. is only going to make it worse in the end.

Peter isn't stupid you know. You just said exactly why he isn't working on P2Pool yourself: if the blocksize limit is removed like you and the big Bitcoin players paying your salary want, running a node will cost thousands of dollars per year in equipment and network bandwidth.

Why on earth would any miner want to spend that much money when they can just mine at BTC Guild instead and increase their profit margin?

The worst part is you know this, and spread this bullshit anyway.

So lets ask you a question, in all those meetings you have at the Foundation, who is present? What are the likes of big payment processors like BitPay telling you to say about the blocksize limit? What do they want, and do they care about Bitcoin's decentralization at all?

I apologize if this was already asked and answered, but I didn't see it.

This change seems like it would make a 1 BTC transfer fail if the chosen input was 1.000001 BTC because the change would be below the threshold for being passed on. Will this be made obvious to users or will it just not confirm with no explanation? Could this be solved by automatically making the fee eat the whole amount of the change?

"invisible hand of the market"

this is what libertarians actually believe.

I'll agree that people (including myself) have sometimes oversimplified it.  If 90% of the network stops relaying small transactions, they are effectively dead, no matter who is willing to mine them or the minority that will relay them.  However, this could already be happening -- there is no guarantee that everyone will relay and mine every transaction.  I think there are some pools currently censoring Satoshi Dice.  The incentives are engineered to attempt to make cooperation be in everyone's best interest.  If nodes don't want to process your transaction, then you'll have to pay more, or use a currency backed by laws forcing it to be legal tender, and rely on people with guns and human cages to make sure your transaction is processed.  I mean, there's a certain baseline level of consent you have to meet to make any transaction happen.  The more parties you add, the higher it might be.  No amount of complaining about fairness or "Satoshi's vision" will change that, unless human nature changes.  I'll agree that maybe a .1BTC fee would be quite fair to send a few satoshis that might rot on hard drives forever, but such a policy should be coded and advertised by miners, not the main developers.  If anyone cares enough to do this, it will happen.

You invoked The Whitepaper, but I am not finding any place where it says arbitrarily small transaction values must be possible, certainly not to the level of detail of 1 satoshi.  In fact, Satoshi was here for the IsStandard() change to the client to only allow certain types of transactions.  How's that for censorship?  The same arguments raged in that thread, by the same (types of) people as today.  If restricting tiny payment values is the start of Bitcoin "going down", it already died years ago when an infinitude of possible payment scripts were censored in pretty much the exact same way as these values.

I can agree that this change could have had better transparency.  I do not believe the developers are changing it just to flex.  Whoever believes in allowing small transactions can band together and make it happen, at least as well as non-IsStandard() transactions are still happening today.  The fact that no pools are "stepping up" shows they are willing to let the developers set this policy for them, or can't be bothered at this early stage to make any announcements about it (the first release candidate with this change just barely came out, after all.)  That kind of apathy is what could kill bitcoin, not what defaults the developers set.

If you read nothing else:  You call this censorship.  The blockchain already "censors" transactions less than 1 satoshi because they are not expressible by the protocol.  Again, why is this significantly different than "censoring" values less than 5430 satoshi?  You have chosen to ignore the low value of 5430 satoshi, which makes me believe you feel it's irrelevant, and it's just the principle of it.  That's almost an understandable hard-line ideological reason, but then how is even a 1 satoshi minimum acceptable, then?  "I want to send 0.1 satoshi, and the client is censoring me by not allowing it!"  I'm guessing you weren't campaigning against that some months ago before this change came up.  Did you complain when 0-satoshi outputs were made non-standard in similar fashion to this change?  That would actually be more literally censorship, since there is no transfer of value, only information.  This is the biggest hole I see in an argument that is supposedly only about an ideological offense to censorship.  There has never been a Bitcoin network that did not restrict transaction values in some way.  The only argument left is that further restricting is automatically bad, but I don't think that is reasonable and self-consistent.  As I pointed out, 1 possible transaction value (zero) has already been removed.  Was that censorship less severe just because it was smaller, or was it because it was "censorship" of "speech" (zero value) you also did not support?  There could be more possible answers (please give one if you have another), but these seem hypocritical from a hardline purely "free speech" perspective.  Similarly I can't think of a consistent reason to support divisibility only down to 10^-8, if you ardently believe that transaction value should be a form of unrestricted speech.

Maybe it was a little garbled; I find some of your posts to be the same way to me.  I made the mistake of trying to address several points and it probably got jumbled.  I think it shows you are not willing to have any reasoned discussion about this, that you don't even attempt to address any more than one sentence of what I wrote but spend the rest of your post calling me stupid and uninformed.  These sorts of tactics will not persuade anyone who might have been sympathetic to your arguments and able to make any difference.

I would agree censorship is against the spirit of bitcoin, but this isn't censorship because it's voluntary.  If everyone running a node updates but changes their settings back to a 1-satoshi minimum, nothing will change.  If people update and don't care to change defaults, or agree with them, this change will happen.  It's like democracy.  I'm getting tired of the arguments about "nobody ever changes the defaults, so the defaults are de-facto rules."  I agree this is probably quite true, but it's the users' problem for not bothering to understand what the beta software they're running on their system is doing.  You should advocate about that issue, not what the defaults are.  (And yes, this is a problem with software in general; average computer literacy is nowhere near high enough to effectively do all the stuff that people are trying to do with computers.  If you want a payment solution that "just works", I'm sure someone like Apple has such a thing, but you have absolutely no transparency in how it works.)

I consider these regulations similar to a bank account. We will eventually have to take them out to fund the network, but that's not necessary now. So we'll earn some interest (the interest being the lack of spam and smaller blockchain sizes) in the meantime.

What is there to make up?  I stated an opinion, some figures, and a fact about the protocol.  Are my figures and facts wrong, or my opinion?

My opinion is that because the market has not moved significantly, nobody cares.  Or, perhaps they don't know about this, which is another form of "not caring."  If they can't be bothered to follow the news and make decisions based on it, the future of bitcoin must not be very important to them.  That's their choice, but you seem to believe others who are smarter, should make it for them.  If that's really what you believe, we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that your way of thinking is in line with "the spirit of bitcoin" or what the average user wants.  (Oh, another theory: the people who cared have sold their bitcoins for good, and people who don't care bought them, bringing the market to equilibrium.  If true, this means the changes have driven people away from bitcoin, but nobody said it has to be palatable to every single person; that's impossible.  Use/create an altcoin if bitcoin is unacceptable to you.)

Since you're so much smarter than the market, please enlighten us how these regulations will be hurting bitcoin in the long term?  Seriously, if there's a reason, I want to know.  Is there some reason a 5430-satoshi minimum hurts us, but a 1-satoshi minimum didn't?  Remember that the network sets the minimum as each node wills, so it can go back down to 1 satoshi if that's what they want.  If so, where is the threshold where it goes from acceptable to unacceptable?  Or is any change from what Satoshi blessed automatically bad?  In that case, bitcoin has been harmed hundreds of times over the last few years.

Wow. It's the opposite. The market is smarter than any single human. It works like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU