From: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Chain dust mitigation: Demurrage based Chain Vacuuming
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:04:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9B78C2C9-2B06-47F1-A99D-D36668D97B2D@ceptacle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJAxGxrtqHSx4ssowg=C=Q+ajELHsEfAgjNh9W2+ExpgVQ@mail.gmail.com>
> 1) Wouldn't the need to re-transact your coins to keep them safe from "vultures", result in people frantically sending coins to themselves, and thus expand the block chain, instead of reduce growth?
Not at the rate suggested
> 2) putting those hard limits in passes a value judgement that IMO should not be present in the protocol. <1BTC may be worth a lot some day, or it could go the other way around, with dust spam of 10+ BTC. Either way the limits will have to be changed again, with yet another fork.
Well, retransmitting 1BTC ones every 4 years isn't that bad. So I don't see a need for another fork for this reason.
> 3) The (normal) user does not have a view of his balance consisting of inputs and outputs of various sizes. He just sees his balance as one number. And somehow, inexplicably (except through a very difficult explanation), it's going down... what if he has 10000 BTC in 0.9999999 BTC units? Annnnnd it's gone after 210000 blocks.
Agree to this - and also to the fact that it will be hard to introduce - it would be changing the protocol quite a lot (perhaps too much).
A better set of relay fee rules rewarding a decrease in # UTXOs is probably the (easiest) way forward.
/M
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-03 13:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-03 11:19 [Bitcoin-development] Chain dust mitigation: Demurrage based Chain Vacuuming Michael Gronager
2012-12-03 12:05 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-12-03 12:24 ` Michael Gronager
2012-12-03 12:33 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-12-03 15:02 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-12-03 15:17 ` Alan Reiner
2012-12-03 15:30 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-03 16:18 ` Stephen Pair
2012-12-03 16:29 ` Alan Reiner
2012-12-03 19:50 ` Andreas Petersson
2012-12-03 20:14 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-12-03 15:51 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-12-03 12:40 ` Wladimir
2012-12-03 13:04 ` Michael Gronager [this message]
2012-12-03 15:00 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-03 15:07 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-12-03 15:09 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-03 17:02 ` Mark Friedenbach
2012-12-04 9:54 ` Andy Parkins
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9B78C2C9-2B06-47F1-A99D-D36668D97B2D@ceptacle.com \
--to=gronager@ceptacle.com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox