WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs - page 7.

gweedo

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1000

Quote from: scintill on May 12, 2013, 10:03:23 PM

Quote from: pekv2 on May 12, 2013, 08:55:29 PM

I still agree that this a censorship.

Honestly I'm not even necessarily arguing against that anymore. Someone is putting barriers to you expressing yourself in certain ways; you can call that censorship if you want. But gweedo is trying to use precedent and Satoshi's supposed intentions to paint this as some first-time grave departure from the fundamentals of bitcoin. I've shown there's already precedent for something similar done by Satoshi himself years ago, and it hasn't killed us yet. If that doesn't persuade you, fine, but I hope you at least believe what you do for sound reasons.

There's also the fact, mentioned by several people several times, that nobody has to mine or relay anything. That's the way it's always been. Tweaking some default settings doesn't change that. It may nudge a lot of people in a certain direction, but they have just as much of a choice as they always had.

If you want a payment system with strictly-defined parameters under which a payment must be accepted or you have some power to impose consequences, then use legal tender and courts to force your payment to be accepted. Or maybe see if you can come up with an altcoin with similar properties.

Your talking about scripting, that is a different subject, it has nothing to do with dust. I have proven everyone of your argues to be wrong, what else do I need to do, have Satoshi show you it is wrong.

I love how people are arguing against me instead of going "Hey this guy has proven everyone else to be wrong with documentation." But most people are followers and don't see it that way. That is the sad part.

ijphlrnxewho

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1000

it's been weeks since I follow up with bitcoin.
Did they stop the transaction fee completely? Yes or No?

BitHits

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

BRING ON THE FORKS!

ITS PAST DUE WE FIX BITCOIN!

E-Mail [email protected] if you are interested in doing this.

I'll be starting a website in the near future dedicated to fixing BitCoin before self-righteous fucks destroy it with what 'they think' is best for BitCoin.

gweedo

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1000

Quote from: pekv2 on May 12, 2013, 08:55:29 PM

I still agree that this a censorship.

I know, it is sad, that the dev core development team brainwashed other people. It is like the foundation all over again LOL

Theraty

member

Activity: 196

Merit: 10

Quote from: ?? on ??

I dont believe this will happen to the Bitcoin chain at all, It just isnt likely considering how much profit miners still can make.

But doesn't the extra transactions make the transfer rate slower. I mean with all the transactions under say .01 included in the system, wouldn't all other transactions and confirmations slower?

boonies4u

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

I dont believe this will happen to the Bitcoin chain at all, It just isnt likely considering how much profit miners still can make.

Right, because miners depend so much from fees. Roll Eyes

darkmule

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1005

Quote from: The-Real-Link on May 13, 2013, 06:52:39 PM

if 0.8.2 gives us miners control, that's very cool. I know some wouldn't like the concept as it goes against true freedom in Bitcoin-Land but I'd rather have something work VS something so slow and bloated that it's unusuable and hinders progress and development.

There may and probably will come a time when the interests of the users of the currency (who are actually using it as a currency) collide with the interests of miners. There's a natural tension there. (One that the market should be able to resolve, usually.)

However, speaking as a user, I have had numerous transactions from 3-10 BTC where I would sit and watch, sometimes for hours, while floods of dust transactions worth less than a penny went by on the blockchain while my own transaction languished without a single confirmation. It is quite infuriating. Usually, things go smoothly. When they don't, though, it is hard to have patience for these bullshit little transactions.

wolongong

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 13, 2013, 07:13:29 PM

Quote from: wolongong on May 13, 2013, 07:10:47 PM

Finding a way to halt the flood of micro transactions, fine, but why does that have to kill something like getting the correct amount of change back from a slightly larger input?

It doesn't relative to past versions: change under 0.0005 BTC was already generally converted into fees (because any output >0.01 forced the transaction to have a fee of at least 0.0005 BTC/kb, so any change less than 0.0005 was converted to fee in order to avoid an even larger fee)

QT client is one thing. Won't be relayed, won't be mined is something else.

Theraty

member

Activity: 196

Merit: 10

Quote from: The-Real-Link on May 13, 2013, 06:52:39 PM

As was said, to see this develop isn't completely unsurprising given anyone who watched this market in the past few months.

How many microtransctions (and by micro I mean 0.01 or less) do we need cluttering up the system before something grinds to a halt. It seemed to be screwing up Gox enough, as is, though granted it's both parties' fault.

if 0.8.2 gives us miners control, that's very cool. I know some wouldn't like the concept as it goes against true freedom in Bitcoin-Land but I'd rather have something work VS something so slow and bloated that it's unusuable and hinders progress and development.

Also I realistically figure that hey, this was control that was patched and implemented. If uBTC or such ever becomes such a valuable resource and coins are far above $1,000 (where micro payments could be say, $1 or so), then yeah, they could always revisit the code again and adjust accordingly. Even if I'm misunderstood in my explainations, the idea still stands that I don't recall hearing this is a forever-permanent kind of thing.

I think given the problems with spam and such we've seen though lately, that it was a good move to make until the usage and infrastructure catches up further.

I think you raise a good point. Every time the bitcoin reaches a new target amount, say $1000 per bitcoin, the transaction amount can move down one decimal place. As it stands, there is no need for transactions less than .0001BTC.

If this was to happen it could drastically improve the speed of transactions but could have an effect on the development of the currency in third world countries where the bitcoins can give help improving their communities.

wolongong

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on May 13, 2013, 12:19:47 PM

Would you send 1 penny to your mortgage company to pay down the principal if it costs you $0.46 min to mail it? Of course not.

Stuff like this happens every day in financial markets. The ECB announcing the 2 digit precision of the EUR will stay but going to make it impossible to settle cents through TARGET2 would be an administrative nightmare. There is another currency, I forgot which one, that pulls crap like this and is next to impossible to plug into standard STP systems.

gweedo

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1000

Quote from: solex on May 12, 2013, 08:29:51 PM

Quote from: CasinoBit on May 12, 2013, 08:24:31 PM

Quote from: darkmule on May 12, 2013, 08:12:24 PM

Quote from: gweedo on May 12, 2013, 08:02:51 PM

Quote from: boonies4u on May 12, 2013, 07:57:45 PM

Quote from: gweedo on May 12, 2013, 07:46:02 PM

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The fact that you can purchase ASICs and use them to confirm your own and others' "dust" transactions is proof that this isn't censorship.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

You seem to think you have the right to demand that the miners do something for you for free. It costs as much to transmit the same number of bytes whether it is for a 1000 BTC transaction or a dust transaction that does nothing except benefit you, for whatever reason you want it, and otherwise just clutters up the blockchain.

Why should your nearly worthless transaction be entitled to the same consideration in getting into a block as one that actually benefits the network in general?

Because where do you draw the line? First it's the dust transactions then they may block one dollar transactions, next thing you know no-one will accept transactions unless you pay a fortune in transactions fees...

The line is being drawn between 0.5 and 1.0 cents because this mirrors how the fiat world works. It also reduces abuse of the blockchain as a data-storage waste dump. That's it. Many people have written here in support of that. No one is talking about raising this line above one cent (except you).

How is it a data-storage waste dump? It is a legal transaction. If you have a problem with the size of the blockchain then don't use the full node, go to a lightweight client. That is why they are created.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: wolongong on May 13, 2013, 07:10:47 PM

Finding a way to halt the flood of micro transactions, fine, but why does that have to kill something like getting the correct amount of change back from a slightly larger input?

It doesn't relative to past versions: change under 0.0005 BTC was already generally converted into fees (because any output >0.01 forced the transaction to have a fee of at least 0.0005 BTC/kb, so any change less than 0.0005 was converted to fee in order to avoid an even larger fee)

gweedo

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1000

Quote from: darkmule on May 12, 2013, 08:12:24 PM

Quote from: gweedo on May 12, 2013, 08:02:51 PM

Quote from: boonies4u on May 12, 2013, 07:57:45 PM

Quote from: gweedo on May 12, 2013, 07:46:02 PM

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The fact that you can purchase ASICs and use them to confirm your own and others' "dust" transactions is proof that this isn't censorship.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

You seem to think you have the right to demand that the miners do something for you for free. It costs as much to transmit the same number of bytes whether it is for a 1000 BTC transaction or a dust transaction that does nothing except benefit you, for whatever reason you want it, and otherwise just clutters up the blockchain.

Why should your nearly worthless transaction be entitled to the same consideration in getting into a block as one that actually benefits the network in general?

Cause if I am paying fees, it shouldn't matter if my transaction is 0.00000001BTC or 1000BTC, so nothing is being demanded for free. Thank you for showing you have no idea what your talking about but keep commenting like you do.

wolongong

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

Finding a way to halt the flood of micro transactions, fine, but why does that have to kill something like getting the correct amount of change back from a slightly larger input?

The-Real-Link

hero member

Activity: 533

Merit: 500

As was said, to see this develop isn't completely unsurprising given anyone who watched this market in the past few months.

How many microtransctions (and by micro I mean 0.01 or less) do we need cluttering up the system before something grinds to a halt. It seemed to be screwing up Gox enough, as is, though granted it's both parties' fault.

if 0.8.2 gives us miners control, that's very cool. I know some wouldn't like the concept as it goes against true freedom in Bitcoin-Land but I'd rather have something work VS something so slow and bloated that it's unusuable and hinders progress and development.

Also I realistically figure that hey, this was control that was patched and implemented. If uBTC or such ever becomes such a valuable resource and coins are far above $1,000 (where micro payments could be say, $1 or so), then yeah, they could always revisit the code again and adjust accordingly. Even if I'm misunderstood in my explainations, the idea still stands that I don't recall hearing this is a forever-permanent kind of thing.

I think given the problems with spam and such we've seen though lately, that it was a good move to make until the usage and infrastructure catches up further.

TraderTimm

legendary

Activity: 2408

Merit: 1121

The only ones afraid are the same that are abusing the blockchain.

Luckily, we'll soon be rid of their abusive behavior. Thanks for pushing us to this point, fellas - you're all such real "chums".

BitcoinAshley

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Scrat Acorns on May 13, 2013, 11:19:18 AM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on May 12, 2013, 10:34:42 PM

Miners have ALWAYS been free not to include your tx in a block. Miners everyday routinely don't include tx in the next block (thus the unconfirmed list).

Initially the functionality of the bitcoind were so crude miners had little control over what tx were included. That wasn't intended it was simply the result of limited development and higher priorities. Over time more functionality was added which allowed miners to fine tune their transaction selection.

Today miners can and do exclude transactions based on:
a) priority
b) block size
c) tx fees

and starting in 0.8.2
d) output size

0.8.2 simply gives miners the ability to better control the transactions they want to include. If it wasn't in bitcoind miners could write custom patches to do the very single thing. Satoshi always intended for miners to have the control over which tx to include. Nothing has changed, the devs have given miners the tools to make more informed transaction selection. Now miners are "big boys" and if they see a lot of value in including 100 satoshi or even 1 satoshi transactions they can. They simply need to change the configuration file. Given miners already set a half dozen configuration values related to min fees, block size, priority, etc one more config value is hardly a burden for a miner.

If you think bitcoin is better off with 1 satoshi spam ... then convince enough nodes to mine them and you can spam away. The reality is you KNOW miners don't want to include dust spam however prior to 0.8.2 they lacked tools good enough to make optimal tx selection. No miners wants to bloat the chain with uneconomical spam, it makes their future jobs more difficult. All those uneconomical outputs have a high probability of never being spent and thus they bloat the UXTO. The UXTO governs the resources miners (and all full nodes) use to validate tx and blocks.

It seems you are afraid of the free market. Freedom is about choice. You are free to create dust spam, nobody can stop you. Miners are free to chose not to include that dust spam up till now miners lacked good tools to exclude those tx. That isn't "freedom" it is merely a lack of choice due to insufficient development. Starting in 0.8.2 you won't be able to stop miners from exercising their freedom to not include uneconomical transactions.

Quoted, as it is the post with the highest SNR in this thread.

UXTO bloat can potentially be a big problem in the future if it is not addressed.

The sky is not falling people.

QFT!
Something is seriously, seriously wrong here...
The people with the tinfoil hats are scared of the free market!
Isn't that, like, backwards or something? Grin

gweedo

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1000

Quote from: boonies4u on May 12, 2013, 07:57:45 PM

Quote from: gweedo on May 12, 2013, 07:46:02 PM

Even if I have to buy a million dollars worth of ASIC machines I will (Basically all my bitcoins).

The fact that you can purchase ASICs and use them to confirm your own and others' "dust" transactions is proof that this isn't censorship.

That makes no sense, that is like saying, a country is censoring the people inside but you can overthrow them so it isn't censorship.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: wolongong on May 13, 2013, 08:29:23 AM

Don't like it one bit, this makes it next to impossible to scrape of tiny fractions of your incoming transactions for eg. a service fee.

Of course you can just use sendmany (or do it off blockchain).

i.e. 10x 0.1 BTC inputs and you want to divert 1% as a processing fee.

Transaction consists of:
10 x 0.1 inputs, 10x 0.099 outputs, 1x 0.01 collected fee.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: wolongong on May 13, 2013, 11:40:50 AM

If I take a .1, 54 μBTC or a .00000001 fee out of a 10 BTC incoming it takes up the same amount of space, but whatever. Good luck explaining random transmission fees to bean counter types.

+ // Never create dust outputs; if we would, just
+ // add the dust to the fee.
+ if (newTxOut.IsDust())
+ {
+ nFeeRet += nChange;
+ reservekey.ReturnKey();
+ }

Somehow this just keeps reminding me of http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/salami.asp and the story of why coins got ridges.

I think you misunderstand.

If you create a 1 BTC (or even 0.1 BTC or even 0.005 BTC) output it is highly likely to be spent eventually. Now how long may vary. Some outputs will be spent very quickly, some longer but the UXTO will be roughly based on the number of users * avg life of an unspent output. The UXTO (not unpruned historical blockchain) is the CRITICIAL RESOURCE.

However if you create a 1 satoshi output it likely will never be spent. Would you send 1 penny to your mortgage company to pay down the principal if it costs you $0.46 min to mail it? Of course not. So even with NO GROWTH in number of users the UXTO will continually bloat by the creation of "uneconomical transactions".

They can't be pruned, they can't be spent (well technically they can people will just choose not to) so they add the overall cost of the network for no benefit.

Topic: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs - page 7. (Read 58546 times)