That's right, instead of 540 satoshis the bitcoin-core now won't allow outputs smaller than 2730 satoshis. This is starting to piss me off because every time you change it I must also change my program logic.
Just out of curiosity, what are you programming that depends on sending dust? (or at least very small, dust-alike txs)Proof of existence on the block chain. And actually I consider the lion share of my project (see my signature) a decoder not the encoder. I have been monitoring the bitcoin's block chain for human readable text messages and JPG images for nearly 2 years now. The decoding service is not creating any UTXOs. Only the encoding service is creating them and this is up to each user's own moral standards. I am planning to switch to OP_RETURN soon, or at least have this as an alternative option for
There would be no point in fighting you about this. It's a loophole of the system and you are using it. On one hand I don't really like it because I'm paying for storage (nodes work for free), on the other hand I hope that if there are enough of such users the blockchain size will grow
so large that:
- it will force into a change in the system,
- or full node numbers dwindle
Both ways, there will be a change.
so large that:
- it will force into a change in the system,
- or full node numbers dwindle
Both ways, there will be a change.
You are right. In fact I am totally on your side in this. I also hate this loophole and I wish it got fixed somehow. I hate the idea of block chain growing into infinity. And with my actions I hope to draw enough attention on the issue that it actually gets resolved before a malicious entity finds a way to destroy bitcoin using the same loophole. Also, so far my services have not created any noticeable pollution. It's still just a fun educational experiment. For that reason I urge you not to be too mad at me. Also, satoshi nakamoto himself used the block chain in this "abusive" manner by embedding a message for the bankers in the first block. If satoshi didn't want the block chain to be used for other activities than purely monetary transactions then why on earth did he do it? That was a rhetorical question, no need to answer
