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 1YrA1R-00011g-Hb for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 19:02:49 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YrA1Q-0002gs-8q for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 19:02:49 +0000 Received: by wiun10 with SMTP id n10so58492348wiu.1 for ; Sat, 09 May 2015 12:02:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=SZ+vAPPuzoSWzCzDwzy17q1jJTXz4LrdvaqSW38TuHg=; b=EWimsH3Y3cMMdv6geVOqmYms8DoG/Yhq0J2Nd26GzryZe5e1miKfu645/LLMUqReMQ IOoLMuDCQXkcBf/yWStdQLo7+C60C722+wPRyv7za7yNMSAiVdbsqTKG2xUOxO/51+an oTCfU1eApYhsk3SMT0g96Ah0ov/Jpf2SNyJppxtIOYFqHKobt5+mg06j2K/ASc7fKxyC LdvkhH+IAW/Z/uHjn+xf+I76tK+v0oi4RMJvakAflvcn1kOE436r91pJONMrGyL8UztY BbuMJ3YsMc8/YJAqvpAG1BXNqlUIyUDvKddZc+jlDUbqOzxnEMvftfkSqwIOHSm7JWE/ 74Gw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnIMGUxn9Ijjze9T2wYi4uBehYtSRm0mz0rqvpStRAjeb7nTGc+huV0bv7FO0UvXZA4t+4e X-Received: by 10.180.187.141 with SMTP id fs13mr7867199wic.26.1431198162203; Sat, 09 May 2015 12:02:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.246.69 with HTTP; Sat, 9 May 2015 12:02:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150509184518.GA19703@muck> References: <20150509184518.GA19703@muck> From: Jim Phillips Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 14:02:11 -0500 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c381e40fcbd70515aaca4d X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.7 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28 BODY: HTML: images with 2400-2800 bytes of words 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_REMOTE_IMAGE Message contains an external image -0.4 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YrA1Q-0002gs-8q Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A suggestion for reducing the size of the UTXO database 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: Sat, 09 May 2015 19:02:49 -0000 --001a11c381e40fcbd70515aaca4d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 12:09:32PM -0500, Jim Phillips wrote: > > The vast majority of users are running one of a handful of different > wallet > > apps: Core, Electrum; Armory; Mycelium; Breadwallet; Coinbase; Circle; > > Blockchain.info; and maybe a few others. The developers of all these > > wallets have a vested interest in the continued usefulness of Bitcoin, > and > > so should not be opposed to changing their UTXO selection algorithms to > one > > that reduces the UTXO database instead of growing it. > > You can't assume that UTXO growth will be driven by walles at all; the > UTXO set's global consensus functionality is incredibly useful and will > certainly be used by all manner of applications, many having nothing to > do with Bitcoin. > You're correct in this point. Future UTXO growth will be coming from all directions. But I'm a believer in the idea that whatever can be done should be done. If we get Bitcoin devs into the mindset now that UTXOs are expensive to those that have to store them, and that they should be good netizens and do what they can to limit them, then hopefully that will ideal will be passed down to future developers. I don't believe consolidating UTXOs in the wallet is the only solution.. I just think it is a fairly easy one to implement, and can only help the problem from getting worse in the future. -- *James G. Phillips IV* *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals." -- David Ogilvy* *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice before printing.* --001a11c381e40fcbd70515aaca4d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= at, May 9, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>= wrote:
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 12:09:32PM -0500,= Jim Phillips wrote:
> The vast majority of users are running one of a handful of different w= allet
> apps: Core, Electrum; Armory; Mycelium; Breadwallet; Coinbase; Circle;=
> Blockchain.info; and maybe a few others. The developers of all these > wallets have a vested interest in the continued usefulness of Bitcoin,= and
> so should not be opposed to changing their UTXO selection algorithms t= o one
> that reduces the UTXO database instead of growing it.

You can't assume that UTXO growth will be driven by walles at al= l; the
UTXO set's global consensus functionality is incredibly useful and will=
certainly be used by all manner of applications, many having nothing to
do with Bitcoin.

You're correct in = this point. Future UTXO growth will be coming from all directions. But I= 9;m a believer in the idea that whatever can be done should be done.=C2=A0 = If we get Bitcoin devs into the mindset now that UTXOs are expensive to tho= se that have to store them, and that they should be good netizens and do wh= at they can to limit them, then hopefully that will ideal will be passed do= wn to future developers. I don't believe consolidating UTXOs in the wal= let is the only solution.. I just think it is a fairly easy one to implemen= t, and can only help the problem from getting worse in the future.

--
James G. Phillips IV=C2=A0= =C2=A0
"Don't bunt. = Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals." -- David = Ogilvy

=C2=A0This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. P= lease think twice before printing.

<= /div> --001a11c381e40fcbd70515aaca4d--