MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150509184518.GA19703@muck>
References: <CANe1mWzBy8-C+CWfwaOLxJ2wokjy8ytQUh2TkRY_Ummn1BpPzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150509184518.GA19703@muck>
From: Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia.org>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 14:02:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CANe1mWycAwFzC3b7khd2EwCusyQEdg5g-pvdTadsLuASr7dHHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c381e40fcbd70515aaca4d
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A suggestion for reducing the size of the
 UTXO database
Precedence: list

--001a11c381e40fcbd70515aaca4d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, 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
> 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*
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts>
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ergophobe>

*"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

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
at, May 9, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt;</span>=
 wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.=
8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-st=
yle:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 12:09:32PM -0500,=
 Jim Phillips wrote:<br>
&gt; The vast majority of users are running one of a handful of different w=
allet<br>
&gt; apps: Core, Electrum; Armory; Mycelium; Breadwallet; Coinbase; Circle;=
<br>
&gt; Blockchain.info; and maybe a few others. The developers of all these<b=
r>
&gt; wallets have a vested interest in the continued usefulness of Bitcoin,=
 and<br>
&gt; so should not be opposed to changing their UTXO selection algorithms t=
o one<br>
&gt; that reduces the UTXO database instead of growing it.<br>
<br>
</span>You can&#39;t assume that UTXO growth will be driven by walles at al=
l; the<br>
UTXO set&#39;s global consensus functionality is incredibly useful and will=
<br>
certainly be used by all manner of applications, many having nothing to<br>
do with Bitcoin.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You&#39;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&#39;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.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>--<br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div><d=
iv><div><div><b>James G. Phillips IV</b>=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://plus.googl=
e.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts" style=3D"font-size:x-small" target=
=3D"_blank"><img src=3D"https://ssl.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-16.png">=
</a>=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://www.linkedin.com/in/ergophobe" target=3D"_blank=
"><img src=3D"http://developer.linkedin.com/sites/default/files/LinkedIn_Lo=
go16px.png"></a></div></div><div><font size=3D"1"><i>&quot;Don&#39;t bunt. =
Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals.&quot; -- David =
Ogilvy<br></i></font><div><font size=3D"1"><br></font></div></div><div><fon=
t size=3D"1"><img src=3D"http://findicons.com/files/icons/1156/fugue/16/lea=
f.png">=C2=A0<em style=3D"font-family:verdana,geneva,sans-serif;line-height=
:16px;color:green">This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. P=
lease think twice before printing.</em></font></div></div></div><br></div><=
/div>

--001a11c381e40fcbd70515aaca4d--