No worries, I wasn't accusing you of ranting, I was just taking issue with your plea for the developers to be 'non-controversial', as the developers aren't responsible for the existence of shrieking imbeciles (I do not accuse you of being one).

And asking questions is definitely better than being ignorant. But even better than asking questions is reading first. See the addendum to this post for example: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/196138.msg2040160#msg2040160

I dont know... It's been interesting to watch this unfold. I think it says more about the new reality of a reddit sub with 40,000 members and how the development team communicates changes to the community.

The reality is a base level of understanding is required to comprehend the changes being made, and without that base level it's very easy to jump to incorrect conclusions.

Which is good, because it makes it a bit more difficult to be an evil miner.  No, this has nothing to do with censorship.  It is pure common sense.

Which version are you on, btw?  You know outputs of 0.00000000 were "censored" (i.e. made non-standard) around version 0.6 or so, right?  Those are still allowed, just not considered a standard bitcoin transaction any more.  Those are just as useless as outputs of 0.000005 BTC, and waste just as much space in the blockchain, but better because they can be pruned and don't waste resources in the UTXO set.
It says "programmer for hire" under your name.  Perhaps you rent out your daddy or something?

By not upgrading, you wil not get the benefit of lower txfee either.  The txfee in 0.8.1 is much higher than your 54µBTC.  If you want to go back to the versions where even smaller transactions were considered standard, your txfee will be five times higher than in 0.8.1.

I wish. 0-value outputs can't be pruned because they can still be spent. I _think_ I'd like us to some day make 0-value txouts impossible to spend (e.g. via a softfork), and then they could be pruned... but it's not clear if perhaps there wouldn't be good uses for them, and there is no rush now because since they're non-standard their use isn't large or increasing.  Getting rid of them has "theoretical attractiveness" because so long as there are no zero value outputs the maximum size of the utxo set is bounded and known. (And before someone gets spun up, I don't think the same about low but not zero value txouts, for all the obvious reasons)

It was easier to make 0 value txouts non-standard because there was no uncertainty about future Bitcoin values or such— it's obvious that a zero value output can't yield more Bitcoin than it costs to spend, since it yields none at all. Without the uncertainty you don't need to wonder about how you'll adjust things over time or what the right initial threshold is, etc.

So who has actually been DoS by outputs I never seen anyone say anything about that. But good your solo mining does nothing so your not any threat

Since I run 3 nodes, and a testnet node. currently I don't even notice the node running on my laptop (couple years old macbook pro) which I am using now. So maybe update your computer, or if your running a netbook obviously your not going to run a node on their.

my idea: create a 8.0.1Z version or something that is IDENTICAL to the current one with the only different being the version number, this way it helps to quantify the support, or lack of the movement to keep microtransactions going on.

(not stating my opinion towards the issue, this is just an idea, instead of just flat out ignoring the new version)

So... Let me get this straight... Everyone is all wound up because the fee's have changed...

--- bitcoin 8.1 (main.h around line 45)
static const int64 MIN_TX_FEE = 50000;
/** Fees smaller than this (in satoshi) are considered zero fee (for relaying) */
static const int64 MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE = 10000;
----

--- bitcoin (git just cloned, main.cpp around line 57)
int64 CTransaction::nMinTxFee = 10000; / Override with -mintxfee
/** Fees smaller than this (in satoshi) are considered zero fee (for relaying) */
int64 CTransaction::nMinRelayTxFee = 10000;
----

Umm... WTF?

I suppose gavin screwed up and should have written instead:

int64 CTransaction::nMinTxFee = 50000; / Override with -mintxfee


Then everyone would be happy...

If you actually read you understand but you are clueless, so I take pitty on you.