WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs - page 24.

lophie

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1001

Unlimited Free Crypto

Quote from: mc_lovin on May 05, 2013, 05:28:14 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on May 05, 2013, 05:20:32 PM

Quote from: mc_lovin on May 05, 2013, 05:17:17 PM

What about when you do a "sendmany" transaction? For when you need to pay 200+ people with one transaction in a batch, would this 54uBTC law apply to the whole sum of all the payments within the transaction or each amount within it? If we can send them in batch safely as long as the total was >54uBTC, then people won't have anything to complain about, perhaps then the thing to do would be to wait until you have enough transactions to send.

"Treat dust outputs as non-standard" said in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577.

So an output is.. the total amount?

No. For example in sendmany you could send to five different addresses, Each one is considered an output.

Hey this stirred another question in my head. What about the "change" output. Can it be less than 54uBTC? What is it tagged differently than other outputs?

mc_lovin

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

www.bitcointrading.com

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on May 05, 2013, 05:20:32 PM

Quote from: mc_lovin on May 05, 2013, 05:17:17 PM

What about when you do a "sendmany" transaction? For when you need to pay 200+ people with one transaction in a batch, would this 54uBTC law apply to the whole sum of all the payments within the transaction or each amount within it? If we can send them in batch safely as long as the total was >54uBTC, then people won't have anything to complain about, perhaps then the thing to do would be to wait until you have enough transactions to send.

"Treat dust outputs as non-standard" said in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577.

So an output is.. the total amount?

bitcoiners

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: bitcoiners on May 05, 2013, 05:21:38 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Most people who posted in this thread are utterly clueless about the subject of conversation. Go fork yourself a cluelesscoin or something.

Lol, says the guy that told people to buy above $200 before the crash and then is commenting on cluelessness. You even asked if the crash was over and it crashed again down to $50. You have no idea what you are saying. End of story.

ROFL. You have just proven my point.

What that you are an idiot?

arklan

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1008

i've never understood why there needs to be rules prohibiting these transactions. just enforce appropriate fees. "oh, you wanna send a satoshi? well ok... but the fee for that is MORE then a satoshi, so, you know. proceed at your own risk."

doesn't block transactions, but makes them much, much less likely to occur.

bitcoiners

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on May 05, 2013, 04:48:52 PM

Quote from: bitcoiners on May 05, 2013, 04:41:53 PM

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on May 05, 2013, 04:39:31 PM

Quote from: Daily Anarchist on May 05, 2013, 04:16:31 PM

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on May 05, 2013, 04:15:11 PM

Quote from: Daily Anarchist on May 05, 2013, 04:12:48 PM

If the vast majority of the community doesn't like this move can't we just ignore the new patch and refuse to upgrade?

Go ahead. :-) I think you will be disappointed however.

How so? If the vast majority stick with the 0.8.1 client I think the 0.8.2 client people would be disappointed.

Bitcoin is still Beta level software- there are still quite a few bugs to be worked out.

Um, transaction size is not a bug.

No, it's not, and I didn't mean to imply that. What I meant to convey is that you could still with this version of the bitcoin software if you want, but you would be missing out on all the bugs that get fixed with later version releases. Hence the "I think you will be disappointed". Because I think the future advantageous of the newer software will outweigh this issue.

Also, who says this is permanent? Maybe it's a stop gap measure to satisfy some pressing demands while a better solution is found.

Rabbit, I like your posts I really do. But you are defending something only the bitcoin "millionaires" want. So far the majority of the bitcoin world is against this if you check the other post/poll in this sub and the votes. I don't care if it's permanent or not. Transaction size should not be limited. Period.

bitcoiners

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Most people who posted in this thread are utterly clueless about the subject of conversation. Go fork yourself a cluelesscoin or something.

Lol, says the guy that told people to buy above $200 before the crash and then is commenting on cluelessness. You even asked if the crash was over and it crashed again down to $50. You have no idea what you are saying. End of story.

lophie

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1001

Unlimited Free Crypto

Quote from: mc_lovin on May 05, 2013, 05:17:17 PM

What about when you do a "sendmany" transaction? For when you need to pay 200+ people with one transaction in a batch, would this 54uBTC law apply to the whole sum of all the payments within the transaction or each amount within it? If we can send them in batch safely as long as the total was >54uBTC, then people won't have anything to complain about, perhaps then the thing to do would be to wait until you have enough transactions to send.

Any transaction containing outputs less than 54uBTC will not be relayed

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Admit utter defeat in this argument if you dare.

LOL

Perhaps I meant micropayments. In that context, micropayments are a viable use-case. But sending less than a penny? Bitcoin in it's current incarnation will eventually be unable to handle that, the transaction fee would be too high.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: mc_lovin on May 05, 2013, 05:17:17 PM

What about when you do a "sendmany" transaction? For when you need to pay 200+ people with one transaction in a batch, would this 54uBTC law apply to the whole sum of all the payments within the transaction or each amount within it? If we can send them in batch safely as long as the total was >54uBTC, then people won't have anything to complain about, perhaps then the thing to do would be to wait until you have enough transactions to send.

"Treat dust outputs as non-standard" said in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577.

mc_lovin

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

www.bitcointrading.com

What about when you do a "sendmany" transaction? For when you need to pay 200+ people with one transaction in a batch, would this 54uBTC law apply to the whole sum of all the payments within the transaction or each amount within it? If we can send them in batch safely as long as the total was >54uBTC, then people won't have anything to complain about, perhaps then the thing to do would be to wait until you have enough transactions to send.

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Dacm4n on May 05, 2013, 02:13:50 PM

Quote from: mpfrank on May 05, 2013, 02:11:14 PM

Quote from: jdillon on May 05, 2013, 01:51:20 PM

Gavin Andresen has changed the Bitcoin code to block any output with a value of less than 54uBTC:
...

So, what happens when Bitcoin takes over the world economy, and 54 uBTC is worth a lot of money ($54 say)? Then Bitcoin will only be usable for large-value transactions... It will be more like the existing inter-bank wire-transfer system at that point...

Maybe use litecoin, that's one of the reasons it was created.

Not really. Litecoin is FASTER. Litecoin handles micro transactions quite poorly though because the fee is actually higher on a dollar basis than bitcoin. Until litecoin is patched it costs .1 LTC or about 40 cents for a transaction. If I were to take litecoin for my $2 orders might actually cost the customer more then Paypal would charge me (in microtrans mode)!

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: ?? on ??

Bitcoin is not suitable for micro transactions. This is all. Nothing new here, it was pretty obvious from the very beginning that all those dusters are allowed to shit into blockchain only until there are not enough more serious transactions to fill the blocks.

If you want to spam blockchain, patch the client or use another one and hope that miners will be amenable to serve you for free.

Bitcoin IS suitable for microtransactions. I do transcations shipping items that have actually been smaller then 20 mBTC. The issue here is that microtransactions are not what is being blocked, what is being blocked is what bitcoiners call dust. What is being blocked could be called pico-transactions, and bitcoin is the only system that could potentially handle these but it is problematic.

lophie

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1001

Unlimited Free Crypto

Quote from: ?? on ??

Most people who posted in this thread are utterly clueless about the subject of conversation. Go fork yourself a cluelesscoin or something.

I was one of the flamers until Gavin and Gmaxwell put me in my place. I think the reasoning and implications of this decision was not advertised and explained enough, And how temporary and easy to change back this is.

Guys we at least owe Gavin some gratitude to consider actually reading what is this all about. right?

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Has nobody read this thread?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191425.0;all

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on April 30, 2013, 09:03:57 AM

This pull request is the first step towards a market between miners (who want higher fees) and merchants/users (who want lower fees, but also want their transactions confirmed). Miners can already control what fees they accept, this pull lets users control (very clumsily, improvements on the road map) the fee they are willing to pay.

Quote from: Mike Hearn on April 30, 2013, 11:11:23 AM

Eventually the goal is to have no hard-coded magic fee levels at all, so manual adjustments to reflect big exchange rate swings aren't needed any more. But we're not there yet.

If that's the direction the reference client is going then I consider this to be a positive change.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on May 05, 2013, 04:46:06 PM

I think we need to ask ourselves if Bitcoin will be a small transaction currency in the future or if it will be the backbone of a new future financial system in which the regular user rarely interacts with the blockchain directly.

Are u talking about Bank 2.0?

gweedo

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1000

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on May 05, 2013, 04:46:06 PM

Quote from: gweedo on May 05, 2013, 04:31:39 PM

I agree with this we need to fork, bitcoin was once known for the small transactions, and they want to take that away. Gavin has an ego and it needs to be taken under control. This is ridiculous this is a fix because they don't want to spend time trying to fix the bloat of the blockchain thru censorship!

I think we need to ask ourselves if Bitcoin will be a small transaction currency in the future or if it will be the backbone of a new future financial system in which the regular user rarely interacts with the blockchain directly.

That said, rather then fork- why not devise an alt-coin or use bitcoin testnet coins for this?

Your talking about something maybe in 25-50 years from now could happen. Today I want to send a penny if I use 0.8.2 I can't. IT IS CENSORSHIP. THE FOUNDATION IS ALL ABOUT CENSORSHIP!!!! GAVIN IS A DICTATOR OF BITCOIN. SATOSHI WOULD CRY RIGHT NOW!!! THE DEV TEAM CAN"T EVEN CODE THERE WAY OUT OF A PAPER BAG, THEY ARE USELESS. I am sick of them, the community is sick of them, it is time to cut them out of the power positions they have created for them self. If you believe that your correct go update, but trust me it starts with little changes like this and next thing you know your silk road addresses are block, then other things. GAVIN IS A POWER HUNGRY GREEDY PERSON, I SAW THIS FROM DAY ONE OF THE FOUNDATION. I HAVE BEEN RIGHT THE WHOLE WAY DOWN TO THIS.

OVER THROW THE DEV TEAM, THEY CAN"T HANDLE THE POWER THEY HAVE!

Fiyasko

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1001

Okey Dokey Lokey

Created a poll for this subject
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-082-what-do-you-think-196266

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on May 05, 2013, 04:39:31 PM

Quote from: Daily Anarchist on May 05, 2013, 04:16:31 PM

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on May 05, 2013, 04:15:11 PM

Quote from: Daily Anarchist on May 05, 2013, 04:12:48 PM

If the vast majority of the community doesn't like this move can't we just ignore the new patch and refuse to upgrade?

Go ahead. :-) I think you will be disappointed however.

How so? If the vast majority stick with the 0.8.1 client I think the 0.8.2 client people would be disappointed.

Well they are fixing things in the upgrade releases, so I think in general you will want to upgrade. If not now, then eventually. Bitcoin is still Beta level software- there are still quite a few bugs to be worked out.

0.8.2 will have the small transaction change with some bug fixes...

We can upgrade to 0.8.3 that has the transaction change taken out and leaves in the bug fixes.

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

Quote from: bitcoiners on May 05, 2013, 04:41:53 PM

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on May 05, 2013, 04:39:31 PM

Quote from: Daily Anarchist on May 05, 2013, 04:16:31 PM

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on May 05, 2013, 04:15:11 PM

Quote from: Daily Anarchist on May 05, 2013, 04:12:48 PM

If the vast majority of the community doesn't like this move can't we just ignore the new patch and refuse to upgrade?

Go ahead. :-) I think you will be disappointed however.

How so? If the vast majority stick with the 0.8.1 client I think the 0.8.2 client people would be disappointed.

Bitcoin is still Beta level software- there are still quite a few bugs to be worked out.

Um, transaction size is not a bug.

No, it's not, and I didn't mean to imply that. What I meant to convey is that you could still with this version of the bitcoin software if you want, but you would be missing out on all the bugs that get fixed with later version releases. Hence the "I think you will be disappointed". Because I think the future advantageous of the newer software will outweigh this issue.

Also, who says this is permanent? Maybe it's a stop gap measure to satisfy some pressing demands while a better solution is found.

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

Quote from: gweedo on May 05, 2013, 04:31:39 PM

I agree with this we need to fork, bitcoin was once known for the small transactions, and they want to take that away. Gavin has an ego and it needs to be taken under control. This is ridiculous this is a fix because they don't want to spend time trying to fix the bloat of the blockchain thru censorship!

I think we need to ask ourselves if Bitcoin will be a small transaction currency in the future or if it will be the backbone of a new future financial system in which the regular user rarely interacts with the blockchain directly.

That said, rather then fork- why not devise an alt-coin or use bitcoin testnet coins for this?

Topic: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs - page 24. (Read 58546 times)