Topic: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs - page 22. (Read 58538 times)

It is an option in the configuration file.

Part of the impetus of the change is to make it configurable, rather than compiled in.  In other words, it is getting easier to change these guidelines.

So as I understand it the default behaviour becomes that the satoshi client will not by default relay any TX with an output less than 5340 sts, i.e. treat them as non-standard TX.

If there is an existing wallet full of unspent TXout <5340 sts will they now become essentially unspendable ... or can they be collected with other larger TX inputs and sent to TXout >5340?

Are we sure there are not dozens of users in very poor locales existing on dollars per day bit-dust farming for a living that this will impact?

I'm all for reducing blockchain bloat and this looks like a good approach but needs to be a way to collect dust back into marketable sized unspent-TXout ... just want to check that it exists using this approach?

tl;dr Dust creators should be penalised and dust reducers should be incentivised.

What is everyone's take on this? (will edit in my take on it)

Erik, I think Satoshi Dice has done nothing wrong, and we all know this a vendetta against your business to cover up the dev's mis management of handling a lot of transactions in the blockchain. No user should be at fault for using the system as it was intend by design. This is a developers censorship of businesses that use bitcoin, who will be next, for doing stuff the dev team doesn't find to be "using the system correctly".

Part of the issue is that people were starting to use the blockchain for data storage, not currency transfer.

Below a certain economic value, it becomes trivial to use ultra-low-value transactions as data transmission.

I'm all for it. So, when this is implemented, then perhaps the coin dust minimum can be reduced from 5430 to 1 satoshi at a faster rate than the BTC fx rate is climbing.

This change does exactly that:  takes previously compiled-in "minimum relay" defaults, and make them configurable.

This.  There is no reason why every node needs to store every block.  Luckily, the solution is obvious: blockchain pruning.  As long as there are 100 or so copies and the people who care about the transaction store it, the blockchain can be completely reconstructed.  Some will still archive the whole thing, but it doesn't have to be necessary.

Lots of good arguments in there, Timm.

SatoshiDice has paid more to miners than all the rest of everyone, combined. It pays for its usage of the blockchain, according to the rules of the game. If you have ever sent a transaction without a fee attached, you are spamming the blockchain more than SD.

I certainly can understand this.....

Well I'm auctioning off a house in Bitcoin at the moment because I agree wholeheartedly that this kind of transaction is what BTC is useful for. However, when I go to spend my BTC on goodies, I don't want to HAVE to buy another house with them

Why do we even need satoshis then? Let's just taken a digit off the currency then?

I did above, it's also covered on the pull request above—  it means that absent some agreement a miner you'll have to use quanta for your colored coins large enough to pass the rule.  This works out sensibly in any case, because it means that even if your colored coins lose their colored value there will still be some economic incentive for people to sweep up the set of unspent transaction outputs.

As value goes up, the the micro's are not micro's any more, but perhaps the Bitcoin protocol canot handle mass adoption then? is this an admission?

It is temporary.

That said, we still don't know what the definitive fix will be. Or at least I haven't found it sketched anywhere.

I'm hoping this change won't impact colored coins -- because colored coins are important.

Can anyone comment on this?

I'm ok if its temporary but if 1BTC is say $1000 or $2000 it needs to be adjusted.  I tried "free" dust and its a waste of time a CPU can mine more in a single block.

Just so.  If there are no limitations at all a griefer (or other malicious force, like an antiquated payment system that feels threatened by Bitcoin) could just flood bitcoin with inconsequential "non-transactions" producing hundreds of gigabytes of bloat and making bitcoin unusuable and non-decenteralized (because if Bitcoin required 200GB of storage right now in its infancy, who would run it??).  So there must be something to rate limit attacks.

Fees have generally served this purpose— but they are a blind mechinsm that doesn't really distinguish abusive use from good use, they just hope abusers use the network a lot more. But as there is more legitimate economic use and value people want the base fees to go down and not up.  Fortunately, some of the more obnoxious abuse these days looks categorically different from ordinary transactions: They create tons of 1e-8 value outputs (not 0 value, because the node software already blocks zero value outputs) which encode data.  By having a minimum output value it increases the cost of that bloat by a factor of over 5000 without impeding pretty much any normal transactions.  It also reduces the incidence of people getting irritated because they've received payments which cost them more in fees to spend then they're worth.

0.01 was actually the minimum available in software at the start.

Yes, but there is no choice in the matter (as far as I am aware).  Will there be an option where I can set what transaction amounts I wish to propogate and what transaction amounts I wish to block?