Well, I can at least respect that you're willing to put in effort to fight for your principles.

No, it's not right.  From what I have read, the new client has an option in bitcoind.conf to set the transaction limit.  This is actually more freedom, not less.

What I asked for is a scenario.  I am thinking of numbers, bitcoin amounts, where you think you would be harmed.  The inputs, the outputs.

This proves nothing at all if I'm reading the same PDF.  First, search for the string "0000000" (7 zeroes).  The only place it occurs is "P=1.0000000" (end of line).  So that is not 8 decimal places after the dot.

Second, that number appears under "Calculations", right?  That is the probability of a successful second-chain attack, not a block reward.  I don't think specific block rewards or a halving schedule are even in this paper, only the mention that new coins will be the incentive to mine, but that they may eventually go away.

I'm still open to my search function not finding something you are finding, but this sounds like what you described and yet is nothing like what you claim it says.

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.

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'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.

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.

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...

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)

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.