From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UF6Co-00024Q-JO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:08:10 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.171; envelope-from=jtimonmv@gmail.com; helo=mail-qc0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-qc0-f171.google.com ([209.85.216.171]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UF6Cn-0004vr-2b for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:08:10 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id d1so1594886qca.2 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.74.10 with SMTP id p10mr7413862qev.35.1363021683525; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.11.140 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130310043155.GA20020@savin> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:08:03 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?CUpvcmdlIFRpbfNu?= To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (jtimonmv[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1UF6Cn-0004vr-2b Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blocking uneconomical UTXO creation X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:08:10 -0000 Well, my initial idea was that nothing was really needed too. But if something must be done, I dislike very much the "ban micropayments" approach. I was just offering other solutions that I consider much better, but if nothing is done I won't be pushing for those alternative solutions (to a problem that we may not even have). On 3/11/13, Mike Hearn wrote: > Why does demurrage even still come up? The base rules of Bitcoin will > not be changing in such a fundamental way. > > With regards to trying to minimize the size of the UTXO set, this > again feels like a solution in search of a problem. Even with SD > abusing micropayments as messages, it's only a few hundred megabytes > today. That fits in RAM, let alone disk. If one day people do get > concerned about the working set size, miners can independently set > their own policies for what they confirm, for instance maybe they just > bump the priority of any transaction that has fewer outputs than > inputs. An IsStandard() rule now that tries to ban micropayments will > just risk hurting interesting applications for no real benefit. It's > like trying to anticipate and fix problems we might face in 2020. > > There are lots of less invasive changes for improving scalability, > like making transaction validation multi-threaded in every case, > transmitting merkle blocks instead of full blocks, moving blocking > disk IO off the main loop so nodes don't go unresponsive when somebody > downloads the chain from them, and finishing the payment protocol work > so there's less incentive to replicate the SD "transactions as > messages" design. > --=20 Jorge Tim=F3n http://freico.in/ http://archive.ripple-project.org/