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 8F85D95D for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:17:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com (mail-qk0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 167283D9 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id y126so31651069qke.4 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:17:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=R2nXeC8rN/NH1BePKYQRxNYQwyVtgLFX2bm6fUP+QpM=; b=uqazVdtomhWGnr2GpaOGLJjqaLXcth+SrEKuy1mVnvsfCQNasmh0uWH3hT2i1RLwHN 48y985RuNv+s9ufYV+B7buLdmCxnS+E75vdOO0DN7tdK31PkKP0uIdb8sIepa8yHuFE5 icm8fdcxxBVjTxRmYbDMOxhEbCoLGs/GaSw6GaGfW93fuu4QaNiF7RQV/wMnfRHrxjjO 41M2eUUIgk7iMNu4qbcAf9FapqfHJVow+CZRBtqwFFUrN+F1k0U91E8e5zPa2Y+RWQ5C 2yyg/pnLE7dI8ILcRDSVxJ+F1Gn4UOtlToOImgkP9t0K7qJ9lAjf9I89X6Zqz4hM65qt NAAw== 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; bh=R2nXeC8rN/NH1BePKYQRxNYQwyVtgLFX2bm6fUP+QpM=; b=ZCp71kp2FE4tk4L72hu1bnzxF5qoiFiVHDOqwfJMBQdSpF9Rvx9ehLVviuwUJla1pJ 7XgL66cdeRB5DV0Iw6adS7OYfJvcVf6xF9WsWxXPgrxOFMEjv2W7kQeHo5sHNelBlPyy EWE3fSPJMpTAUnhlgTrW1zixDhkQ/vY1j5TKjt5XAas4OgGioZKib2N/s1HhwB/Y/05Y ElFoiuWj9TLQWP4u2aUDCB0PfOKZ4u2JgyJLedCYo/2IADHEOl+NESp/qlKX6FqQT8Ur TSFw+v/gJCqFtWPE+5kqa5i/voI/S46+yXGkPD5ehEYhoymtgHgxXZ5EPUFD7qZ0lr3A CzKA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110NbU6mq1viDupsV8TbzbgDCgx+wjhNHt+OWf7cwZgFOIoImdHX ipEQd/f+/n0aEjnf38jKJa020I5M3w== X-Received: by 10.55.135.196 with SMTP id j187mr10233937qkd.221.1500668260261; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:17:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.200.13.15 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:17:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Moral Agent Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:17:39 -0400 Message-ID: To: Lucas Clemente Vella , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0760cc94243c0554d98e99" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:24:04 +0000 Cc: Major Kusanagi Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal 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: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:17:41 -0000 --94eb2c0760cc94243c0554d98e99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" If we have a problem with a UTXO set that is too large, seems like maybe the fair way to approach it is to enforce a limit on the growth of the UTXO set. Miners would eventually be forced to generate blocks that are UTXO neutral and would factor that into their algorithm for prioritizing transactions. Users who wish to generate a lot of outputs would need to find a buddy with lots of inputs to consolidate and create a tumble-bit with them. A market would spring up that would charge people for creating UTXOs and pay them for disposing of UTXOs. On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Lucas Clemente Vella via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 2017-07-21 16:28 GMT-03:00 Major Kusanagi via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > >> [...] But the fact is that if we want to make bitcoins last forever, we >> have the accept unbounded UTXO growth, which is unscalable. So the only >> solution is to limit UTXO growth, meaning bitcoins cannot last forever. >> This proposed solution however does not prevent Bitcoin from lasting >> forever. >> > > Unless there is a logical contradiction in this phrasing, the proposed > solution does not improves scalability: > - "Bitcoins lasting forever" implies "unscalable"; > - "not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever" implies "Bitcoins lasting > forever"; > - Thus: "not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever" implies "unscalable". > > In practice, the only Bitcoin lost would be those whose owners forgot > about or has lost the keys, because everyone with a significant amount of > Bitcoins would always shift them around before it loses any luster (I > wouldn't bother to move my Bitcoins every 10 years). I don't know how to > estimate the percentage of UTXO is actually lost/forgotten, but I have the > opinion it isn't worth the hassle. > > As a side note, your estimate talks about block size, which is determines > blockchain size, which can be "safely" pruned (if you are not considering > new nodes might want to join the network, in case the full history is > needed to be stored somewhere). But UTXO size, albeit related to the full > blockchain size, is the part that currently can not be safely pruned, so I > don't see the relevance of the analysis. > > -- > Lucas Clemente Vella > lvella@gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --94eb2c0760cc94243c0554d98e99 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If we have a problem with a UTXO set that is too large, se= ems like maybe the fair way to approach it is to enforce a limit on the gro= wth of the UTXO set.

Miners would eventually be forced t= o generate blocks that are UTXO neutral and would factor that into their al= gorithm for prioritizing transactions. Users who wish to generate a lot of = outputs would need to find a buddy with lots of inputs to consolidate and c= reate a tumble-bit with them. A market would spring up that would charge pe= ople for creating UTXOs and pay them for disposing of UTXOs.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017= at 3:59 PM, Lucas Clemente Vella via bitcoin-dev <bit= coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
2017-07-21 16:28 GMT-03:00 Major Kusanagi via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:=
[= ...] But the fact is that if we want to make bitcoins last forever, we have= the accept unbounded UTXO growth, which is unscalable. So the only solutio= n is to limit UTXO growth, meaning bitcoins cannot last forever. This propo= sed solution however does not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever.
=C2=A0
Unless there is a l= ogical contradiction in this phrasing, the proposed solution does not impro= ves scalability:
=C2=A0- "Bitcoins lasting forever" implies &q= uot;unscalable";
=C2=A0- "not prevent Bitcoin from lasting for= ever" implies "Bitcoins lasting forever";
=C2=A0- Thus: "not prevent Bitcoin from lasting fore= ver" implies "unscalable".

In practice, the only Bitcoin lost = would be those whose owners forgot about or has lost the keys, because ever= yone with a significant amount of Bitcoins would always shift them around b= efore it loses any luster (I wouldn't bother to move my Bitcoins every = 10 years). I don't know how to estimate the percentage of UTXO is actua= lly lost/forgotten, but I have the opinion it isn't worth the hassle.

As a side note, your estimate talks about block size, which is d= etermines blockchain size, which can be "safely" pruned (if you a= re not considering new nodes might want to join the network, in case the fu= ll history is needed to be stored somewhere). But UTXO size, albeit related= to the full blockchain size, is the part that currently can not be safely = pruned, so I don't see the relevance of the analysis.

--
Lucas Clemente Vella
lvella@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--94eb2c0760cc94243c0554d98e99--