Quote from: centove on May 06, 2013, 05:06:53 PM

Quote from: gweedo on May 06, 2013, 04:37:36 PM

Quote from: centove on May 06, 2013, 04:34:56 PM

Quote from: gweedo on May 06, 2013, 03:56:15 PM

Quote from: centove on May 06, 2013, 02:53:04 PM

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

judgemet

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

I did, I read the code the only real change in the behavior is it's checking a run time variable vs a constant.. and said run time variable is different then the constant, if one wants the old behavior pass old value to new run time variable. Or if really concerned write a patch that changes that magic number back to the old magic number and put in a pull request.

It is so much more than... so please read this thread and you will see where the problem lies.

You keep calling it censorship, and trying to control how you spend your btc... Well lets flip that around, as a miner you are telling me that I have to include every one of your transactions no matter what. And I should spend my resources confirming your transactions just because that's what you want. However if I choose to only include transactions that have a fee attached I'm censoring you? You (and anyone else) are free to broadcast as many transactions as you want, of whatever size you want, however you are not free to tell me which ones I have to process or the order in which I have to process them. So as a miner if I decide that from this point on any transaction I include in any block I process will have a 0.001 fee or I will not work it how am I censoring you? Sure I'll include your 0.00000001 transaction but it will cost you 0.001 for me to do so, why? Cause that's my cost to run this node, you don't like it? Run your own node or someone else can pick it up for less and once it's in a block everyone will carry it.

I also read where this is the first step in automating the minimum tx fee. At this point, seeing as this is not done, we can only speculate on how this will be implemented. I for one hope that whatever I pass as a command line argument or set in a config file will override the automated method. But I will reserve judgement on that.

I explained this a hundred times and it is just going in a circle, you can get find my answer here or in another one of these threads.