Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.128.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.128.47; envelope-from=jtimonmv@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qe0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1rt+7BQHz1S=NVtL_YV7kfCapQ+3MEf+xyXT7pZOfq7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130310043155.GA20020@savin>
	<CABOyFfp9Kd+y=SofWfq6TiR4+xeOhFL7VVHWjtrRn83HMsmPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T1rt+7BQHz1S=NVtL_YV7kfCapQ+3MEf+xyXT7pZOfq7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:45:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CABOyFfrO9Xpc=Pdh_6AM1yoHRCeuHxzqL02F-ALkimmsGbheiA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?CUpvcmdlIFRpbfNu?= <jtimonmv@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blocking uneconomical UTXO creation
Precedence: list

"The Bitcoin network will destroy your coins IF you don't move your coins"
Is pretty different. By the way, doesn't have to destroy them, can
just give them to miners.

In any case, what's wrong with my reasoning?
Smart property/colored coins are not spam transactions because they pay fee=
s.

The problem for the network are not transactions that move less coins
than they pay fees, but old UNSPENT OUTPUTS. So why don't you focus on
that instead of a formula to check what transactions make "economic
sense"?

I even prefer the sudden "destruction" (or re-generation by miners) of
the account after the X period (killerstorm's proposal) instead of
just rejecting great potential use cases for the chain.

I mean, I still prefer a small fixed demurrage fee after those X
blocks without moving them, but since this community is demurrage
allergic and that possibility cannot even be considered (doesn't
matter what reflects better the costs for miners/the network I guess),
I'll go with the second best option IMO.

This would be just a fee for a resource that users are enjoying and
has real costs for the network. Why would constant demurrage fees
after a free storage period would be perceived so different from
transaction fees?

I haven't heard anyone complaining about "the bitcoin developers are
destroying part of YOUR coins every time you move them!!"


On 3/11/13, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just activate a non-proportional demurrage
>
> demurrage of any kind will never, ever happen, just give up on that idea.
>
> The negative publicity of "the bitcoin developers are destroying YOUR
> coins!" would be devastating.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>


--=20
Jorge Tim=F3n

http://freico.in/
http://archive.ripple-project.org/