Topic: WARNING! Bitcoin will soon block small transaction outputs - page 9. (Read 58538 times)

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.

Thank you, at least the people still entertaining technical arguments may better understand and believe this is not the first time certain types of transactions have been black-listed.

Mining to confirm your own transactions is not the same as overthrowing a government. It just means that you suck at convincing other people to confirm your transactions so you are forced to confirm your own.

Determining default behavior is not censorship, you're just pissed that a lot of the miners are sticking with the default so you claim it is censorship.

What makes you think that miners should be forced to accept your transactions?

Or as I like to say:  all bitcoins come with strings attached.

That is, the ability to spend bitcoins is precisely and individually defined by the script language.

Each bitcoin transaction may have different rules for spending.

And 99.999% of the possibilities were years-ago classified by Satoshi as "non-standard", and not relayed or mined by default.  Only a few transaction types were whitelisted.

I still agree that this is a censorship.

I know exactly what it is.  You have got to be kidding me.  So, certain transactions used to be possible, then Satoshi banned them.  Today, certain other transactions are possible, the developers are banning them in exactly the same way.  It's "censorship" exactly how you say today's is.  If you can't see that, you either don't understand what bitcoin Scripts do, or you're just hero-worshiping Satoshi and carrying a grudge against the current developers.  I mean, this is so blindingly obvious to me I can't fathom how you can possibly contort your logic to gloss over this.  I will try to explain it though.

You act like sending any amount you want (as long as it's 0.00000001 BTC or more, the One True Quantum Value blessed by the Hand of Satoshi), is some basic human right, but the ability to write any script you want is not.  One might say about restricting the possible scripts:


Those scripts also govern how you may spend your hard earned money.  Because of Satoshi's censorship, you have fewer ways to spend your money than you did before.  How can you not see the inconsistency in your positions?

I'm aware Script is pretty crappy and not very powerful, and the current standard transaction types support most of the things the average person reasonably wants to do.  Satoshi discouraged the use of full Script because the average person doesn't need it, and supporting it risks making the network weaker -- that's exactly the reason why tiny values are being discontinued!  Complain about value restriction if you want, but it seems completely hypocritical to accept Script censorship in the same breath.

P.S.  If Script had not been crippled early on, maybe it would have been extended and be useful today.  I guess we'll never know, since power-hungry, greedy, corporate-owned Satoshi decided to flex his muscle and show us how he can take away our control over our money! (sarcasm, but using the same terms people are using to describe the modern developers and this change)

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).

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...

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?

First you say you have a wager, now you want me to set it up LOL I am done with you. And what does my sites have anything to do with this? Also that site is part of a partnership so you better think twice before dissing it, you may piss someone off that you may want to work with.


Nice deflection but I remember this starting cause you called one of my statements false with no information, that is all I am asking. Show me research and prove me wrong.



Go read it isn't off-topic otherwise report it, that is why we have mods.

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.

So, for the record, I see no refutation of my proof that your claim about the whitepaper is unfounded.  That means there is no foundational significance to the choice of 8 divisible decimal places, it's just what was implemented.  Also as I pointed out before, Satoshi himself has supported "censoring" certain transactions years ago.  Surprise, bitcoin is still alive!  Or at least was 2-3 months ago before all the drama around press contacts and this change started up.  I'm sure you would agree it was fine when the Foundation started, and many formerly-possible transactions were already being censored then.

Yes, we haven't all read all 21 pages of unfounded/misquoted claims about the whitepaper, accusations of how bad Gavin is, and the occasional exchange of factual information or logical arguments.  We're trying to get you to tell us why this is so bad, and your answer seems to be summed up as "censorship!" and "whitepaper!".  If your arguments are more nuanced, feel free to link a past post.  I believe I have just demonstrated why the whitepaper is irrelevant, and also argued here that the censorship argument doesn't make much sense given how Bitcoin was from the beginning, which nobody really responded to.  Maybe it's a stupid argument, but tell me why instead of ignoring it or calling me stupid.  I am also done with this thread unless someone is willing to actually engage in a discussion.

Well, I'm glad the future of bitcoin is safe in your capable and wealthy hands. /sarcasm  But seriously, if a few miners continue to support small tx I think it's a triumph for freedom of choice, but is not particularly valuable beyond ideological purism that has little practical relevance, or protection against the "slippery slope" that I don't think is a real danger.

I'm all for this.  But, it is harder than it looks.  The tricky part is that you have a bunch of competing pressures that you need to balance against the needs of the user.  It gets hard to quantify some of the decisions you have to make.

I wrote my own script to do a little bit of collections and consolidation.  But my script is not a general solution, it would be worthless, or worse than worthless, to people with different needs.

Pretty good analogy, I think.  I might tweak it by saying the smith/stamper could choose to mint your coin at an exorbitant fee, which miners might agree to do with small transactions.  They have all the tools they need to do so, and nobody will stop them.  Yeah, the smith's guild is saying they think such coins are a waste of resources they won't put up with, but that's not censorship because it's not stopping any individual from buying bellows, anvil, etc., and putting in the time to mint their own coin.


He's claiming that 8 decimal places are in the whitepaper and should therefore be retained.  It might make a little sense if it were in there, but I'm not seeing it.  In any case I agree it's incomplete, so it's generally not a useful standard for purists to compare against anyway.  He may as well be complaining that the current block reward schedule is an illegitimate addition, since, as far as I can see, it is not detailed in the whitepaper either.

So what the wager.

If any miner does include it, it will be.  So if there is a market for such transactions, they will be included.  And yes, you can send whatever transaction you like.  It doesn't mean you can force anyone to confirm it.

I don't understand what do you both mean by discussing satoshies not being explicitly mentioned in the paper. The paper is incomplete and everyone knows that. That is why we all refer to the full client as "The Reference Client" still.

I am not mad at all, but you claim I am wrong, so I want you to prove me wrong, which you still haven't done. Which to lead me to believe you just said with no information. I am not screaming at all, I made a statement, that is all, no screaming LOL Let me get a soapbox so I can scream louder.

Not censorship, It is called a free market (Where miners and transactors exchange fees for services).

---------------> start of Lophie's retarded imaginary land

I have an example for you. Imagine we just decided to use gold as a standard. Follow me in this hypothetical scenario please. So in this scenario no one will accept gold unless it is stamped with a universal stamp that verifies how much gold is in one coin (And a coin can be custom made with a specific quantity of gold embedded in it). Now imagine everyone having an equal chance of working as a stamper, Stamping cost them money as well and since ALL of them use the same stamper, they share the burden of keeping track of the stamped coins and their specific quantities embedded in them!.

Now if you want to create a custom coin which contains 1/1000 of what the minimum amount of gold in a coin is usually used, Plus 1/1000 is in fact so little that it costs the stampers even more to stamp it and keep track of the validity of the stamp! Plus the amount is too little that it is VERY unlikely for you to even use that custom coin. One of the stampers argument is also when the receiver want to spend those very very small coins you would have to put thousands of them in a very heavy pouch and dump it on them to melt them again into one coin which again... cost ALOT.

What the developer did in this suggestion is like suggesting a mechanism to determine that exact line when the amount of gold is just not worth it to stamp and that suggested mechanism allow that amount to change as this hypothetical gold fluctuate in value and those stampers start to see that a lower quantity is accepted or the other way around.

---------------> end of Lophie's retarded imaginary land

What you are calling censorship is like asking someone to make you a copper coin with 1 pico of a gram of gold and complain when the smith refuses because it just doesn't make any sense to do that for you.

Just my opinion. Please be nice. I know the above is written by an idiot.

This only determines default behavior of miners and clients. Hardly censorship.