Ah, so we get to configure the already famous patch?

I gave up on the address blacklisting, which I don't see elegant but rather desperate solution. Btw, you are not who decides on who I ignore in RL or the bitcoin network, and how would you know anyway? Can you guess my ignore list on this forum?

I, for one, welcome our new Bitcoin overlords.

It's not blocking them (they're still valid), just declining to participate in them.
This isn't the first version to opt out of relaying spam, either: it's been done since 0.3.19 or so.

it would only be declining to participate in them if when trying to do a transaction of 0.00000001 the client says to the person using it "i decline to send this press override button below to override this option"

but having it built in as a no-option/choice for those that do upgrade the client. is called BLOCKING by definition

It's not a no-option/choice. It's not a change in the protocol. It's completely configurable. There are plenty of other transaction types that are "censored" and "blocked" and have been since early versions or even the first version. Why aren't we complaining about those?

If the devs never make another upgrade and keep it as it is, well, when one Gavin (5340 satoshis) becomes worth $500, miners/nodes can just change their conf files. It wouldn't be profitable to "block" dust transactions if they weren't actually dust.

This is a step towards pricing in tx fees and letting the free market decide. It'd be nice if we could instantaneously remove all magic numbers from the code but had we done that from the start, bitcoin would never have survived.

If they were changing the protocol I'd be concerned. But then there are other coins. If you're so concerned, simply use a different coin. Put your money where your mouth is; take action as a consumer.

Or, start a coalition of people and miners who will simply edit their conf file and thus it will be slightly harder to get tiny tx included in blocks, but it could still happen provided enough participate. This is a likely scenario. Get crackin!

LIKE: blocking dust spam
DISLIKE: default limit, undocumented options, invisible to user

the filtering part of jonls' patch may be controversial, but I really don't understand why we have to implement transaction filtering in a way that is invisible to the user.

Who cares?! It's not a big deal if people can't send less than 5300 satoshis. Who actually sends that small an amount?

Ok, I see why silently dropping transactions from peers is a bad idea. Thank you. But is there a way to penalize dust spam? Say, delay relay of dust spam transactions for 10 minutes.


see:

True, there is a very strong bias to the status quo. If you are who I think you are then you'll get what I mean when I say that it's a lot like the old days at FPC.


There is a certain amount of truth to that but then we get into the design point of view. Why have an arbitrary limit of 8 places on the protocol in the first place, when technically a much larger limit would have been possible, if only to circumvent it later on. I realize that this brings about the idea of an originalist design version adaptation argument but even if Satoshi couldn't foresee this being a problem, and I don't see how they couldn't, I'm not sure this breaks the system to the point where such a change is necessary, much less desireable.