Topic: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs - page 8. (Read 58546 times)

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. 

There is a cost to everything.  Let me know when you issue 1 mg silver cards (~2.3 US Cents).  Next I will ask why not 1 ng cards (0.0023 US Cents).

I like how everyone that quoted me asked the basically the same questions I have answered in the previous posts mean you guys didn't read the whole thread. It is useless debating all of you cause you guys are just so high on the core developer team brainwashing so even if you agreed with my points or thought they were correct, you never admitted. But believe me the people that believe that this is the wrong direction for bitcoin have been talking, and making the necessary connections to make sure the censorship stops.

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

The funny thing is this is exactly like the when the foundation, started. I saw the foundation as a hurtful thing to bitcoin, I even discussed with a couple of people who at the time were very powerful, in this community. They told me I was insane. Today they tell me how right I was...

That is right in the end I am always right and you will see how this going to be one of the failures of bitcoins we look back and say we could have stop it.

I am done posting in this thread, cause it is going around and around in a circle.

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.

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.

There might be a way of protesting this kind of arrangement, especially if some miners/pools adopt a policy of transmitting these small transactions, which is to boycott those who don't.  I.e. if you don't take these small transactions, you don't get my larger transactions with transaction fees, and those fees go to those who will.

This might not be very helpful if the majority of people doing those tiny transactions don't do enough "real" traffic to care about, but then the question becomes whether those people are worth caring about in the first place.  The fact is that the network load created by a given transaction has little to nothing to do with the "value" of the transaction, and is solely tied to the number of bytes it eats in a block.  That asset is limited, and for the sake of efficiency, should be allocated to favor those transactions with more value.

In actuality, though, these dust transactions, of minimal to nonexistent value to the network, consume far more of this limited resource than some feel due.  Why should a 10 BTC transaction wait in line behind 100 SatoshiDice transactions?

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.

This is probably what bothers me the most about this, that people are still so stuck in the old ways of doing things that they want to turn bitcoin into fiat.

If that was the case the default setting would be to relay 1 satoshi, e.g. everyone relays all the transactions unless they set the settings otherwise.

Neither I nor anyone else draws the line.  The market draws the line.  If at some arbitrary limit, the choice of miners to transmit or not transmit certain transactions cramps the style of the people using the currency, there will either be a hard fork or (more likely) some miners will begin to accept those transactions.  After all, a hard fork that is adopted by enough people will damage the value of the blocks they generate more than they save by refusing to transmit small transactions.

This isn't a slippery slope, because there will be pushback if that number does not get consensus (in fact there already is some pushback).  The line might even be drawn before this 54 μBTC value, if enough miners reject it.

First of all gweedo, Didn't you post that you are done with this thread and our stupidity? Do us all a favour and stick to your word please. 

- Considering bitcoin is indeed undervalued is the dust limit really the "limit"? I mean wasn't a better lower limit is 10 BTC in fees when bitcoin was launched (Considering that it was worth virtually nothing). Bitcoin is still undervalued, Isn't that supposed to be consider in the calculations of the dust amount?

- Secondly, I admit there are alot of things in Bitcoin I don't understand so I don't know if this is possible. If I have 100 address with a dust amount, Obviously having them in one address making them NOT dust amount, But the problem as I understand it is it would not be prun-able unless it was spent, So can a user create two subsequent transactions one to accumulate dust in an address and one to move it to another? Then just broadcast them both. If a node saw both transactions it would relay it. Otherwise it would not.

And yeah gweedo just reminded me of something I heard. It was something like, "Power in the hand of the people is as dangerous as power in the hand of a specific individuals or a government. You are just moving power from one hand to the other."... Epic logic  .

I also just want to put this out there. I disagree with the amount and all my nodes will relay %75 of it. It is my right to do so (in order to censor gweedo txes  )

Yes the client can change the amount of dust you keep, in the blockchain and relay, but if I want to send 0.00000001 regardless of the fees. If no miner puts it into the blockchain, and since this is on by default, no one really changes that, it will not be included. That is censorship. Now tell me how do I prove censorship with numbers, cause I never been asked that before.


I hate break your little heart, but you didn't prove me wrong. Look towards the end of the paper, you see those block halvings, they go into the 0.00000001 decimal place. Meaning that Satoshi had always planned for the currency to have 8 decimal places.

I've actually read all of the stupid posts in this stupid thread.

One last time just to be clear:  You are still free to create whatever transactions you want.  You are NOT FREE to force other people to relay or mine them.

You are not being censored.  Grow up.

So, when Satoshi made it so miners can discriminate just by nature of how a free market system works, it was a free market, but when the current developers twiddle a bit of code to update defaults and make it "easier" to discriminate (even script kiddies know how to edit configuration files!), it's now a dictatorship.  OK, LOL.  Also, good job on describing the flaws in the fees model of Bitcoin v0.1.  It's a valid concern, but this change does nothing to make it worse.  The developers intend it to be a stepping-stone to improving things, in fact.


Oh, so you want the developers to babysit your configuration for you, but complain that what they're doing is not what you want.  Just set your own configuration to whatever you want!  Anyone who can't or won't has no business complaining about the defaults.

This.

It is censorship, it is controlling how I spend my hard earn money. The white papers say I bitcoin go to the 8th decimal place, this is changing that, so this must be a new coin then right.

Scripting is about the parameters of transactions, just as dust is.  I find it very relevant.  Satoshi blocked certain transactions based on scripts, Gavin is blocking certain transactions based on values.  There is very little difference, if you're going to be hardcore about free speech and "spending your hard-earned money however you want."  If you will not grant me that, you are either dishonest or confused.  If you agreed but had further issues about why this change is worse, that would be acceptable.  It would at least make you look more informed and reasonable IMO.

Heh, documentation.  Like vague references to what "the whitepapers" say?  Then I showed that the white paper doesn't even come close to saying what you claim where you claim it did, and you gave no answer.


DeathAndTaxes has got this one better than I do, but don't you realize this is exactly how it has been since the start of bitcoin?  I could start solo-mining and attempt to blacklist just your transactions if I wanted.  Each node has as much right to choose what he relays and mines, as you do to create transactions and send it to them.  If you think you ought to have some enforced right to have your transactions confirmed by the network, make an altcoin that magically does that.  Bitcoin has never been that coin.

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. 

There is no censorship here.  You are still free to create and broadcast any transactions you want.  This patch just makes it easier for other people to decide whether to relay your garbage or not.

No they are screwing us publicly. The only thing we can do is convince a bigger miner to not use 0.8.2 or to allow transactions of dust, but that happening is very slim as I have reached out to some of them, and most of them are going to do it. Of course who knows what the ones I didn't contact are doing. So we just have to take it.