From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UF9hE-0004U6-5j for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:51:48 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from 2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk ([90.184.5.129] helo=mail.ceptacle.com) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1UF9hA-0000dm-9D for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:51:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755F52B7DC23 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:36:08 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceptacle.com Received: from mail.ceptacle.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server.ceptacle.private [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qVqw1M2iWKhh for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:36:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.0.1.67] (2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk [90.184.5.129]) by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 303102B7DC11 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:36:06 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Michael Gronager In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:36:05 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20130310043155.GA20020@savin> To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1UF9hA-0000dm-9D 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:51:48 -0000 The point with UTXO is in the long run to be able to switch from a p2p = network where everyone stores, validates and verifies everything to a = DHT where the load of storing, validating and verifying can be shared.=20= If we succeed with that then I don't see a problem in a growing set of = UTXO, may that be due to abuse/misuse or just massive use. A properly = designed DHT should be able to scale to this. However, that being said, if you worry about the size of the UTXO set = you should change the current coin choosing algorithm to simply get rid = of dust.=20 The current algorithm (ApproximateBestSubset) tend to accumulate dust as = dust tend to be on an other scale than a real transactions and hence it = is never included. Regarding the demurrage/escheatment road, I agree that this is for = another project. However, if users/developers like this idea, they can = just implement a coin choosing algorithm donating dust as miner fee and = use it on their satoshi-dice polluted wallet ;) /M =20 On 11/03/2013, at 21:08, Rune Kj=E6r Svendsen = wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Jorge Tim=F3n = wrote: > On 3/10/13, Peter Todd wrote: > > It's also been suggested multiple times to make transaction outputs = with > > a value less than the transaction fee non-standard, either with a = fixed > > constant or by some sort of measurement. >=20 > As said on the bitcointalk thread, I think this is the wrong approach. > This way you effectively disable legitimate use cases for payments > that "are worth" less than the fees like smart property/colored coins. > While the transactions pay fees, they should not be considered spam > regardless of how little the quantities being moved are. >=20 > Then your only concern are unspent outputs and comparing fees with > values doesn't help in any way. >=20 > =20 > Just activate a non-proportional > demurrage (well, I won't complain if you just turn bitcoin into > freicoin, just think that non-proportional would be more acceptable by > most bitcoiners) that incentives old transactions to be moved and > destroys unspent transactions with small amounts that don't move to > another address periodically. This has been proposed many times before > too, and I think it makes a lot more sense. >=20 > =46rom an economic point of view this *does* make sense, in my = opinion. Storing an unspent transaction in the block chain costs money = because we can't prune it. However, it would completely destroy = confidence in Bitcoin, as far as I can see. It makes sense economically, = but it isn't feasible if we want to maintain people's confidence in = Bitcoin. >=20 > I like Jeff's proposal of letting an alt-coin implement this. If it = gets to the point where Bitcoin can't function without this = functionality, it'll be a lot easier to make the transition, instead of = now, when it's not really needed, and the trust in Bitcoin really isn't = that great. >=20 > /Rune >=20 > =20 >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > 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 >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The = Forrester =20 > Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in = the =20 > endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to=20= > tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report.=20 > = http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev______________________________________= _________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development