Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94D86904 for ; Tue, 17 May 2016 18:01:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f176.google.com (mail-qk0-f176.google.com [209.85.220.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 677F725A for ; Tue, 17 May 2016 18:01:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f176.google.com with SMTP id n63so13226830qkf.0 for ; Tue, 17 May 2016 11:01:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=50oopTgxP1mM0rF6NRPzCHb7SE68Evolmmcc/fnhCXE=; b=C1PA4y9KBGINYql7Pe5jN/+OxNFKJ8CEzs9JuDhUDtat80xf5HgHFRfxxS8K0bd0bC pip3ljBJIQfodu6vauBDtKstnEyItx5N75ceY0g2S/4oQqXR4/NbGE+8CezGPUHPcFa4 4ZHjZ5shyTqVBhCtc++87iS/gbudlin3toYnJgTEOSbNngTGxfUI1Xv9o5P4PJoNAbwA uf2lc72PWxjy5CrTtZRWeVxPWBEvJGCEw6MCc61Ad+3AAKU9fD09cm7YRZtj3NYUh+ZM jNcYVb72uZnNv9aPjWwHC/Bb9V0fJl30nVQb0SeZ1Fs7cxq3oDMZiltPUHmCGzXT9txV jdlw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=50oopTgxP1mM0rF6NRPzCHb7SE68Evolmmcc/fnhCXE=; b=QF7HxnYvkRH8sIThtJoE/E36RQnrNEhCXBO+ZvX/1ZERihZlv9h/mmP+7bgNk76Fpv 65RUEIhR5H1F0UwwcZ2m87KEiFP6fG5ELUmsetQTP3vtgFyfQSb3RgoW76N6QlyLtXaT uafosbO/eIN0Q9UP+KmYhdJuzk7BL9FrNscLbfneKWiiJAFXl9p8KEruymP6L06ShEP9 DgqA1Sy/6pmqt980LYi0IqEL1dgO75p2ziD27ZL4WiPkA4Qi1eXm9MPgD6jP4qyjbZm1 Gq+nDVbSG+tl4+buG0ZrPyeloXGX/rYZJesr1H8DEzH/LkYehOc0o3QK7ZfbFRwTA7dC 3jkg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVfzIiWVPSK4LKJzU7m7XGrLw0C8/zBDHJQUDqrAJBStddT34qXZBNcJXOw4K2VP0eLJtBZf0zTuqgYwA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.77.202 with SMTP id a193mr3296253qkb.48.1463508083657; Tue, 17 May 2016 11:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: nbvfour@gmail.com Received: by 10.237.57.230 with HTTP; Tue, 17 May 2016 11:01:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <17436700-3F7F-406B-AA09-51C20FFD7675@gmail.com> References: <20160517132311.GA21656@fedora-21-dvm> <17436700-3F7F-406B-AA09-51C20FFD7675@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:01:23 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8sTsBY7dV5le_fUtpvqg4C2CXdk Message-ID: From: Chris Priest To: Eric Lombrozo , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making UTXO Set Growth Irrelevant With Low-Latency Delayed TXO Commitments 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: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:01:25 -0000 On 5/17/16, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Nice! > > We=E2=80=99ve been talking about doing this forever and it=E2=80=99s so d= esperately needed. > "So desperately needed"? How do you figure? The UTXO set is currently 1.5 GB. What kind of computer these days doesn't have 1.5 GB of memory? Since you people insist on keeping the blocksize limit at 1MB, the UTXO set growth is stuck growing at a tiny rate. Most consumer hardware sold thee days has 8GB or more RAM, it'll take decades before the UTXO set come close to not fitting into 8 GB of memory. Maybe 30 or 40 years from not I can see this change being "so desperately needed" when nodes are falling off because the UTXO set is to large, but that day is not today.