Quote from: coblee on November 18, 2011, 12:44:45 AM

Quote from: kano on November 18, 2011, 12:11:13 AM

Actually, I'm still unimpressed that a change to the economics has been made and the only discussion is an apparent IRC chat about it.
The change is not discussed in the litecoin forum either.

I guess you also took my comments before as 'to be ignored'
Again, it's not an issue that I made a suggestion about how much the fee should be, it's an issue that you seem to have taken it upon yourself to decide what the fee is and then implement it. and then say
"As ltc prices rise, I will readjust the fees as necessary."

Yes this is a change to the economics and since it isn't actually a proper solution to the problem, it's not something that should be changed at all without some form of agreement from the LTC users in general.
I was still getting micro txn's an hour ago.

Or are you saying that if you make a decision about what to change and what not to change that's all that is necessary?
(and I'm sure you understand what I mean by that)

Again, if you really do feel this micro txn spam is more than litecoin can handle, then don't expect litecoin to last very far into the future when there will be a lot more non-micro txn's

... and lastly I will add: do you ignore dissent or consider there might be a reason for it?

I did not ignore your comment. I explained why your suggestion of 0.001 LTC is too low. And I also showed why 0.1 LTC is close to Bitcoin's fees in terms of dollar value. And since the purpose of the fees is to deter DDoS'ing of the network using transaction spams, having a high enough fee is important.

This is a problem that Bitcoin ran into in its early days and it has solved this problem using a complicated formula to assign a fee if the transaction is a strain on the network. The idea is that if you keep reusing coins and send them in large transactions (in bytes), then you need to pay a fee. This makes it costly for a malicious person to keep sending these micro transaction spam to try to hurt the network. But for everyday users, you will not have to pay a fee unless you are using coins you just received. Please read up on this if you want to know more: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

Let me repeat and state that this is not a change in the economics. Litecoin had fees that were too low and made it cheap for someone to launch this attack. So I had to fix it to make the fees in line with Bitcoin in terms of dollar value.

If you want to discuss a solution that's better than the one Bitcoin currently uses, feel free to throw out ideas. I will listen. But please don't just complain that the fees are too high. If you are the attacker, then yes, fees are too high and that's the whole point. This will not have a huge impact on normal users. Most people would agree that they would rather spend a 1/10th of a penny on low priority transactions in exchange for not having a network that's crawling due to attacks by spammers.

OK, you clearly missed the point of my comment.
Hopefully paranoia isn't the reason for that.

I have even said before that I don't really care either way about the txn fee - I just suggested a value and you said why you didn't like it.
Yeah oddly enough I did read your reply even though you imply I didn't.
I also do think 0.1 is too high (and 2 others have said that also) but again it's not about that either.

My point is about making decisions about the economics of litecoin and then implementing them yourself.
Yes the txn fees are part of the economics - if you don't understand that, then litcoin has an even shorter future then anyone might imagine.
A quick fix was implemented, based on your decision (yes you may have discussed this on IRC but seriously you need to document that here at least so anyone interested knows who decided and what was decided) but that appears to be a 'Coblee' decision not a 'Litecoin' decision.
If you have decided that 'Coblee' is 'Litecoin' then say so - don't just act that way.

The spam has stopped to me

But there are a lot of txn's still appearing - (though way less than before) - they seem to be a whole bunch of 2LTC txn's so I guess whoever is doing it is merely shuffling LTC around different accounts - probably running a few litecoind's?