From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <jtimonmv@gmail.com>) id 1UFhrG-0006uz-GV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:20:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.50; envelope-from=jtimonmv@gmail.com; helo=mail-qa0-f50.google.com; Received: from mail-qa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.216.50]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UFhrD-0007V8-HF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:20:26 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id dx4so503410qab.16 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:20:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.84.6 with SMTP id u6mr6879123qey.35.1363166417968; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.11.140 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:20:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CADb9v0JMy8_rWfU3j-g74cbh_1wAdCa5Ce+PkzGadbZL+OV4VQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130310043155.GA20020@savin> <20130312074945.GB25250@savin> <CADb9v0JMy8_rWfU3j-g74cbh_1wAdCa5Ce+PkzGadbZL+OV4VQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:20:17 +0100 Message-ID: <CABOyFfrPTYeq-g5tgte2HWfvBiBcRLw_Bvyk_X2hXMWVoW3dgQ@mail.gmail.com> From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?CUpvcmdlIFRpbfNu?= <jtimonmv@gmail.com> To: Stephen Pair <stephen@bitpay.com> 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: 1UFhrD-0007V8-HF Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> 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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:20:26 -0000 I'm not sure I understand your proposal, but its sounds good. Can you elaborate with an example? Are you considering colored coins/smart property? On 3/13/13, Stephen Pair <stephen@bitpay.com> wrote: > Instead of thinking in terms of blocking uneconomical transactions (how > would a node even determine what's economical?), what about thinking in > terms of paying for a feed of economical (i.e. profitable) transactions? > There is a market for fee bearing, profitable transactions...if there is = no > one willing to pay to receive a transaction, then no one will bother > propagating it. Such a system would make it possible to determine the > probability of confirmation in a given timeframe for a given fee. > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 11:31:55PM -0500, Peter Todd wrote: >> > As discussed endlessly data in the UTXO set is more costly, especially >> > in the long run, than transaction data itself. The fee system is per K= B >> > in a block, and thus doesn't properly capture the long-term costs of >> > UTXO creation. >> >> There's been a lot of discussion about this issue, and many people have >> asked that Bitcoin not arbitrarily block interesting potential uses of >> provably unspendable txouts for data applications, and similarly >> spendable txouts representing assets. I've changed my hardline position >> and now think we should support all that stuff. However, there is one >> remaining class of txout not yet talked about, unspendable but not >> provably so txouts. For instance we could make the following a standard >> transaction type: >> >> scriptPubKey: OP_HASH160 <20 byte digest> OP_EQUALVERIFY <data> >> scriptSig: <data> >> >> Of course, usually the 20 byte digest would be picked randomly, but it >> might not be, and thus all validating nodes will always have a copy of >> the data. With the 10KB limit on script sizes you can fit 9974 bytes of >> data per transaction output with very little waste. >> >> A good application is timestamping, with the advantage over >> coinbase/merkle tree systems in that you don't have to wait until your >> timestamp confirms, or even store the timestamp at all. Another >> application, quite possible with large block sizes and hence cheap or >> free transactions, is secure data backups. In particular such a service, >> perhaps called Google Chain Storage, can offer the unique guarantee that >> you can know you're data is secure by simply performing a successful >> Bitcoin transaction. >> >> -- >> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------ >> Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester >> Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the >> endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to >> tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > > > -- > Stephen Pair, Co-Founder, CTO > > Does *your* website accept cash? bitpay.com > > [image: bitpay-small] > > ABC6 C11B BF75 9E2B FC6A B3E0 7B96 40B2 CAC0 C158 > --=20 Jorge Tim=F3n http://freico.in/ http://archive.ripple-project.org/