From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YrAFZ-0001ci-QL for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 19:17:25 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YrAFW-0006YU-UF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 19:17:25 +0000 Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so58723284wid.0 for ; Sat, 09 May 2015 12:17:16 -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=McV6KhdbsO3+Yi4JyvJe92MJKm/Z4DEypBQgc1o+F5Y=; b=RzCsvp9O64wepDmmlKrvmZUuyeMlz7mJnS/TipCWEcp62CDnwVBaFz5jaZyhNrPSFD C96A38ksxo5PBfb6FCpFR1ZmdFZVXmCziNmRoz65hRCg5Hlb6LD8PCI0bluioNb32cyX NIVTdzsYcBhkqS1pgtsUtFnGt/S6bxS6H8Q0xnGfdBDcx/3FkvMshW8WC1th1ye7E4+R GCxQwOpIoevyZzp8j/rfqlvvNkw7+zQPPPmKQiRUSl03RgrbjyE0BAaQxgrudRZPvcb+ pVMSmQo3p3XkpWf9/WC3+zuh5kgfSRa9IV4eRiudGd3IpPwahUsXi//UK1vlZn5cNlk/ wUmg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkr4JGNphD86mtRzq0mwK9QXKDzFpSO8sf/oLKYTchaWtfzqlr2x1z6My7aaCvk1D985Rz X-Received: by 10.180.73.180 with SMTP id m20mr6765705wiv.2.1431199036886; Sat, 09 May 2015 12:17:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.246.69 with HTTP; Sat, 9 May 2015 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jim Phillips Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 14:16:46 -0500 Message-ID: To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7e663265dd0515aafe40 X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.2 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YrAFW-0006YU-UF Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Andreas Schildbach 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 19:17:25 -0000 --f46d043c7e663265dd0515aafe40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > It's a very complex trade-off, which is hard to optimize for all use > cases. Using more UTXOs requires larger transactions, and thus more fees in > general. > Unless the miner determines that the reduction in UTXO storage requirements is worth the lower fee. There's no protocol level enforcement of a fee as far as I understand it. It's enforced by the miners and their willingness to include a transaction in a block. > In addition, it results in more linkage between coins/addresses used, so > lower privacy. > Not if you only select all the UTXOs from a single address. A wallet that is geared more towards privacy minded individuals may want to reduce the amount of address linkage, but a wallet geared towards the general masses probably won't have to worry so much about that. > The only way you can guarantee an economical reason to keep the UTXO set > small is by actually having a consensus rule that punishes increasing its > size. > There's an economical reason right now to keeping the UTXO set small. The smaller it is, the easier it is for the individual to run a full node. The easier it is to run a full node, the faster Bitcoin will spread to the masses. The faster it spreads to the masses, the more valuable it becomes. --f46d043c7e663265dd0515aafe40 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= at, May 9, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:

It= 9;s a very complex trade-off, which is hard to optimize for all use cases. = Using more UTXOs requires larger transactions, and thus more fees in genera= l.

Unless the miner determines that the reduction in = UTXO storage requirements is worth the lower fee. There's no protocol l= evel enforcement of a fee as far as I understand it. It's enforced by t= he miners and their willingness to include a transaction in a block.

In addition, it results in= more linkage between coins/addresses used, so lower privacy.=C2=A0

Not if you only select all the UTXOs from a single address. A= wallet that is geared more towards privacy minded individuals may want to = reduce the amount of address linkage, but a wallet geared towards the gener= al masses probably won't have to worry so much about that.=C2=A0

The only way you can guara= ntee an economical reason to keep the UTXO set small is by actually having = a consensus rule that punishes increasing its size.

Th= ere's an economical reason right now to keeping the UTXO set small. The= smaller it is, the easier it is for the individual to run a full node. The= easier it is to run a full node, the faster Bitcoin will spread to the mas= ses. The faster it spreads to the masses, the more valuable it becomes.

--f46d043c7e663265dd0515aafe40--