Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJAxGxrtqHSx4ssowg=C=Q+ajELHsEfAgjNh9W2+ExpgVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:04:22 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9B78C2C9-2B06-47F1-A99D-D36668D97B2D@ceptacle.com>
References: <80648682-E34A-455E-B34A-6BC24652C3EA@ceptacle.com>
	<CA+s+GJAxGxrtqHSx4ssowg=C=Q+ajELHsEfAgjNh9W2+ExpgVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Chain dust mitigation: Demurrage based
	Chain Vacuuming
Precedence: list

> 1) Wouldn't the need to re-transact your coins to keep them safe from =
"vultures", result in people frantically sending coins to themselves, =
and thus expand the block chain, instead of reduce growth?

Not at the rate suggested

> 2) putting those hard limits in passes a value judgement that IMO =
should not be present in the protocol. <1BTC may be worth a lot some =
day, or it could go the other way around, with dust spam of 10+ BTC. =
Either way the limits will have to be changed again, with yet another =
fork.

Well, retransmitting 1BTC ones every 4 years isn't that bad. So I don't =
see a need for another fork for this reason.

> 3) The (normal) user does not have a view of his balance consisting of =
inputs and outputs of various sizes. He just sees his balance as one =
number. And somehow, inexplicably (except through a very difficult =
explanation), it's going down... what if he has 10000 BTC in 0.9999999 =
BTC units? Annnnnd it's gone after 210000 blocks.

Agree to this - and also to the fact that it will be hard to introduce - =
it would be changing the protocol quite a lot (perhaps too much).

A better set of relay fee rules rewarding a decrease in # UTXOs is =
probably the (easiest) way forward.

/M
>=20