From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B2C689E for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 21:12:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 696F9140 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 21:11:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f180.google.com with SMTP id d16so11532652ioj.3 for ; Sat, 09 Sep 2017 14:11:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yczuPSqGHi7T1En47213slzaS68KvDW0dZLtmqUfFb4=; b=A+D2PF6VPhA5A3yWWHcQu93q2rqr5DkBq8O0FIQb7mGc6gzHuQnq56/QvY6YlJ08j2 dVkmOnziw2vcjSTn+FcMhYquT4vl0Tj9qbeW0gynefqWPCQ0/55OEuixzMPy4L+gIQni xk5gTygDp49ZUfdypPgZgKiGci8yZam6L93eL2nZ/rChxRrylILD1sfoEl/otM+lOEv9 GLJi8PHohdKELl67c0hVN9I2jB+kPOESH9vDrC0KAhivOCuF1MitwqLn35GKolUmMBvh KxkW9R2b/TYogrVUUeQVgWtZKoCnw9g388D11glWNQkJWfSPh27b3FzRfgNPPb/IemLP O7Ow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yczuPSqGHi7T1En47213slzaS68KvDW0dZLtmqUfFb4=; b=noS86fXW/VRsbOl6mD6U90jVeJKMxx9Z2xjnXw2ZRpjvXtFWTKfnUBDP9ECbB5S197 Ur3yDfSfIFesLeEVgdH8f7INwTyMrnwrLF3pGGV2LQZvqoofDNZ2ft1lj/XGMqF+ypAK whecIV/pmJfHlZ7nv1kGE2toMS76m2gwEHGx3MAMaajUdY2t7SKotnrK4R7SE9ae9r6k MdNlxEm/zGW+D8iz/bNOUB3Y/+6dGU8rRbTuJ+Eak/O3vrjSs9x52VNrOuZNq+SmO+Tz Vm9pVg6cD4GwaFz6zS4UXucLS4qV8h22CUzwDbdahKZsK7e2YmtA6abruGcn52yhwcPk lu0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUiL5l3y9+mxhJNu4prC/gAUvJsuUVBFn/r8gbdKevNrqX88uVLt swclIygWklnNUHHCgmjAizfx2mO0FIat X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBW8cwUQpUFFWTWjUl0z3U8Z7GpZYEAsjONCZkJgr5MURfOWEdo2AN3qIHYDejs55DzDkvf6FqMHyOoSYIZcg0= X-Received: by 10.107.5.194 with SMTP id 185mr9672940iof.98.1504991518623; Sat, 09 Sep 2017 14:11:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.2.80.129 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 14:11:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170907180014.GA13727@fedora-23-dvm> References: <20170907180014.GA13727@fedora-23-dvm> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 23:11:57 +0200 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2017 21:12:00 -0000 Tier Nolan, right, a new tx version would be required. I have to look deeper into the CT as sf proposal. What futures upgrades could this conflict with it's precisely the question here. So that vague statement without providing any example it's not very valuable. Although TXO commitments are interesting, I don't think they make UTXO growth a "non-issue" and I also don't think they justify not doing this. Yeah, the costs for spammers are very small and doesn't really improve things all that much, as acknowledged in the initial post. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:51:45PM +0200, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-de= v wrote: >> This is not a priority, not very important either. >> Right now it is possible to create 0-value outputs that are spendable >> and thus stay in the utxo (potentially forever). Requiring at least 1 >> satoshi per output doesn't really do much against a spam attack to the >> utxo, but I think it would be slightly better than the current >> situation. > > Given that this has a very minimal cost for spammers - just a single sato= shi - > I don't think this is worth the risk of making future upgrades more compl= ex as > other posters have brought up. > > Secondly, I think we have good reason to think that things like my own TX= O > commitments and Bram's related work will make UTXO growth a non-issue in = the > future. > > So, I'd NACK such a proposal myself. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org