Topic: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs - page 13. (Read 58538 times)

There's no real reason the dataset cannot be pruned - i've been playing with a DB copy of a blockchain, looking at ways of "removing" the records for accounts with a nil balance (amount out = total amounts in) where date is > 30 days ago

I don't *need* as a _user_ of bitcoins the whole blockchain, if I could get "balances at point in time" and the journal entries after that.

I similarly dont really *need* (although I might _choose) to have all my addresses maintain a chain of completed transactions - if I could have a way to "move" the balance to another address within my wallet, I could then "discard" that address.

My "real life" wallet doesnt care which ATM each of the notes came out of, I have a "balance" (occasionally) in there I can spend - in fact having that "tracking" decreases anonymity significantly.

A lightweight client is a key to mass adoption (amongst a number of other things).

It's great that my children can empty a moneybox and see a £2 coin and know from the year "that was the one from Grandma on my 6th birthday". It rapidly becomes irrelevant when its a pile of coins getting spent on a beachball - getting the sand out of your shoes becomes much more pressing. In the same way I dont need to know that 4mBTC came from me testing -QT to a non QT client - it's just 4mBTC to be spent, which due to the size and age of the bitcoins will probably cost me more in fees to use than its worth.

Imagine buying a car for £5000 and taking 500x£10 notes to the deaer but you find they cant sell it to you because they came from 702 different amounts of change from your wages, and some are "worth" less when spending than £10 because they're notes only printed that morning, or were made up of 200x5p transactions... in the "real" world £5k is £5k is £5k not some variable equivalent that might eventually be 5k

 

OK. I'll bite. General question:

Why can't it be a standard feature of wallets that, during preparation of a transaction, any utxo < coin_dust is eliminated and the dust amount added to the transaction fee. Surely, this would help prevent a lot of the new dust spam causing blockchain bloat. Does any wallet do this?

What kind of Internet connection do you have? I'm running a full node on a refurb low end Mac mini...I can't tell that I'm running it...I do have a 100mbit/s connection, but I think I would do fine with 1/10 that.

blockchain.info


yup copy it from the bitcoin directory called Blocks in windows 7 C:\Users\users\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin

and for the last question. yes you get .00000003 in change, but that is a good point, would that change be blocked with a .00005430 limit?

Hopefully the first release candidate, will full release notes, will be posted soon (days not weeks).

Anyone know when 0.8.2 gets released?

Think whatever you want, but the real hook to catch people who wants to trade with bitcoin (not speculate, hoard, invest, and so on) is the possibility paying small amounts without commission penalties.

Bitcoin is for trade... isn't it?


I also love you.

tard! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_hash_table

DHT you say?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrotestosterone

Edit: I also think this change is rash.

Micropays...

Not freedom from authority, not an inflation-proof digital asset, not anonymity, not democracy, but buying ringtones over the internet.

You lot are hilarious.

My noob impression is that, if I send 1.000 000 00 BTC out, pay 0.001 000 000 BTC in fees, and I have 2 unspent transactions in my wallet of
0.005 000 00 BTC and 0.006 000 03 BTC, I think I will generate an output of 0.000 000 03 BTC as change.

Is there a market for a DVD of the blockchain to bootstrap people with challenging circumstances?  Today, I have fiber optic to the wall of the house, it terminates within 3' of where I am typing.  My mother has a parcel of land next to her farm and it might be good for me to live close to her as she is getting old and lives alone, it is on a dialup.  I don't think I become less savvy or less important if I want to think about her safety and welfare.

The way I read Gavin's comment, it is completely trivial to do as you want, just put another line in bitcoin.conf.

Is there a web page that gives some statistics on fees in a block?

The most interesting thing, I think, would be a plot of fee size and the delay before the transaction was included.

Why not, exactly? It wouldn't be very hard to change the protocol rules to allow the difficulty to remain low enough to generate blocks on a 5-minute average (or 8 or whatever) instead of 10.

I mean, I understand completely the whole "don't make blocks too fast or they'll be a bunch of orphans as competing blocks overlap" issue, but I don't know if there's any compelling evidence that it takes 5 entire minutes for a majority of nodes to verify a new block. (could be wrong, but I haven't seen any real world data to indicate there is.)

See my signature to get your hands on such coins...

EDIT: PM me if you're interested in my alt coin newsletter which covers new coins as well as my buy/sell price points that have treated my cryptocurrency portfolio well!

No they cannot.

It's a pity read this assert.

The most useful thing of bitcoin is micropays. If you block them, bitcoin lose its main value and a new coin should enter the game.

the rate of block solving could change... 5 minute block solving times instead of 10 minute, for instance. (After all the bitcoins are mined, anyway, or else the reward would have to change as well)

sure, its the 1MB hardcoded block-size limit. but we cannot just increase this number. infrastructure for it has to be build first, you have to consider:
- block propagation time
- block-chain size
- solution to serve a lot of light-weight clients
and I guess theres much more stuff to improve in the code.