so all you people are talking about financial freedom and how banks are evil, but are not willing to accept simple supply and demand?
shut up whines! and just include a fee.
Topic: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs - page 27. (Read 58538 times)
I find this change distasteful and it’s a step on a slippery slope to transaction blacklisting.
I assume that people in this thread don't really understand how serious is the spam problem; it's totally unfair to criticize Gavin for doing this: actually this only shows why he deserves the status of project leader of the satoshi's client.
A proper solution will came some day, but meanwhile this is best thing for the good of Bitcoin's scalability.
If you need micro-transactions you may use for now litecoin or any other altcoin...
A proper solution will came some day, but meanwhile this is best thing for the good of Bitcoin's scalability.
If you need micro-transactions you may use for now litecoin or any other altcoin...
Quote
Re: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs
When is soon?
When bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore?
We need a Bitcoin Constitution.
People who can't tell the difference between changes that affect the protocol and changes that do sound like perfect individuals to write a Bitcoin constitution.We need a Bitcoin Constitution.
When bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore?
We need a Bitcoin Constitution.
People who can't tell the difference between changes that affect the protocol and changes that do sound like perfect individuals to write a Bitcoin constitution. We need a Bitcoin Constitution.
The miner should determine what transaction fees they want to process. This minimum tx fee argument is counterproductive.
The problem is poor blockchain management, not dust. Dust is a valuable part of bitcoins. If it were not valued, it would not be used. The end user should be responsible for keeping their own ledger, if they so want to keep one, and parts of obsolete transaction blocks should be solved by the mining queue to auto-purge by date priority.
The problem is poor blockchain management, not dust. Dust is a valuable part of bitcoins. If it were not valued, it would not be used. The end user should be responsible for keeping their own ledger, if they so want to keep one, and parts of obsolete transaction blocks should be solved by the mining queue to auto-purge by date priority.
I think there should be a minimal transaction fee of 0.001 bitcoins(or at least 0.0005) at this moment (may be smaller if the bitcoin price will rise) and if the transaction amount is less then this amount the transaction would not be possible.
Otherwise somebody could attack the network with 100 million transactions every of 0.00000001 bitcoin.
They are enough alt-coins for small transactions.
Otherwise somebody could attack the network with 100 million transactions every of 0.00000001 bitcoin.
They are enough alt-coins for small transactions.
Do people not realize that we've been dealing with this since the start of Bitcoin? This is what transaction fees are for. I don't care if you want to send a single Satoshi, it's no one else's business what kind of transactions you want to do as long as you pay for it.
When bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore?
We need a Bitcoin Constitution. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/should-there-be-three-laws-of-bitcoin-20866
"You don't change the protocol" sounds like a very hallow slogan to me.
We need a Bitcoin Constitution. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/should-there-be-three-laws-of-bitcoin-20866
"You don't change the protocol" sounds like a very hallow slogan to me.
I think there should be a minimal transaction fee of 0.001 bitcoins(or at least 0.0005) at this moment (may be smaller if the bitcoin price will rise) and if the transaction amount is less then this amount the transaction would not be possible.
Otherwise somebody could attack the network with 100 million transactions every of 0.00000001 bitcoin.
They are enough alt-coins for small transactions.
Otherwise somebody could attack the network with 100 million transactions every of 0.00000001 bitcoin.
They are enough alt-coins for small transactions.
I started the same thread a few days ago over here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/treat-dust-outputs-as-non-standard-un-hardcode-txfee-constants-191425
Gavin replied:
Gavin replied:
Y'all read the pull request, yes?
So: if you have a better suggestion for fixing the problem of new users wasting lots of time gathering tiny drips and drabs of bitcoins, and then getting upset when they can't spend them (because it costs more in fees that they are worth), I'm open to suggestions.
RE: "what about when bitcoins are worth a million dollars apiece"
Umm, that's what the "un-hardcode TX_FEE constants" part is all about?
RE: trolling about Foundation setting the fee:
Go back under your rock, please. 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.
So: if you have a better suggestion for fixing the problem of new users wasting lots of time gathering tiny drips and drabs of bitcoins, and then getting upset when they can't spend them (because it costs more in fees that they are worth), I'm open to suggestions.
RE: "what about when bitcoins are worth a million dollars apiece"
Umm, that's what the "un-hardcode TX_FEE constants" part is all about?
RE: trolling about Foundation setting the fee:
Go back under your rock, please. 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.
blocking small transactions..WTF gavin!!?
the satoshi spam is not a threat, it is a view of the future payment value and volume once bitcoin exceeds $£1000 each. Gavin should be looking for ways to make the block chain cope, not ignore!
oh well there goes any chances of people buying chewing gum with bitcoin, once bitcoin reaches a £$1,000 a coin. all those vending machine companies better give up trying to make bitcoin work. all of those dollar stores might as well give up thinking bitcoin is the best route away from credit card fee's.
anyone that is thinking of selling items for $£1 and want to give a merchant/shoppingcart system 1% of your dollar. better get some new systems inplace or soon the only payments u can do are in large numbers not small handfulls of satoshis.
and for all of them penny per click website advertising revenue companies.. looks like your stuck with FIAT or off the chain book keeping with batch payments, instead of instant payments
may 5th 2013 the day bitcoin is only divisable by 4 and a half zeros
the satoshi spam is not a threat, it is a view of the future payment value and volume once bitcoin exceeds $£1000 each. Gavin should be looking for ways to make the block chain cope, not ignore!
oh well there goes any chances of people buying chewing gum with bitcoin, once bitcoin reaches a £$1,000 a coin. all those vending machine companies better give up trying to make bitcoin work. all of those dollar stores might as well give up thinking bitcoin is the best route away from credit card fee's.
anyone that is thinking of selling items for $£1 and want to give a merchant/shoppingcart system 1% of your dollar. better get some new systems inplace or soon the only payments u can do are in large numbers not small handfulls of satoshis.
and for all of them penny per click website advertising revenue companies.. looks like your stuck with FIAT or off the chain book keeping with batch payments, instead of instant payments
may 5th 2013 the day bitcoin is only divisable by 4 and a half zeros
Ripple might be a good way to make microtransaction denominated in Bitcoin.
Payswarm is better than Ripple.
I see now. So the official client and support network will not recognize microtransactions, but the protocol will still allow miners to deal with them. Only highly optimized miners will profit from accepting them.
I think it show the biggest weakness with bitcoin that Bitcoin protocol is depended on one client and this client is rules by a central committee!!
the solution to this problem is that other bitcoin client like Electrum supporting maining .
the solution to this problem is that other bitcoin client like Electrum supporting maining .
Maybe use litecoin, that's one of the reasons it was created.
Exactly. A multiple level cryptocurrency family function better than a single coin system. but if 99% of the client on the network disallowing it, it's becoming de facto protocol.
Not a file sharing, but distributed DHT-like database HASH=BLOCK
What you're looking for is Freenet. Aside from the anonymity (which is neither needed or maybe even desired for blockchain storage) Freenet is a large operating content-addressed, redundant distributed filesystem with some unique properties such as good resistance to data loss even under the condition of nodes coming and going randomly, with no explicit coordination or configuration. The Freenet developers are aware of Bitcoin and are aware of how Freenet and the potential synergy between the two projects, and I think they only thing that's missing is interest for some type of collaboration to happen is some programmers on the Bitcoin side to take an interest in them. 
Wtf? Why this change? This is nonsense, why forcing this?
Maybe use litecoin, that's one of the reasons it was created.
Exactly. A multiple level cryptocurrency family function better than a single coin system. 
Bitcoin needs distributed block chain storage. This will fix everything.
Aren't bittorrent and other file sharing networks doing this already? What's the holdups or downside?
Jump to: