Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E0AE941 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:30:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D29E614B for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:30:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f170.google.com with SMTP id e189so11325320ioa.4 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:30:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:subject:message-id :references:in-reply-to:to; bh=BJKYQMyUuCGcEu76JW0aG7uoOeegyNXsZRlmtblNxYI=; b=n2p1BbBgYw6cZbkRYPdXSyp4HTqL2bQ5OzT4ZN21vDv43fRvvi/25chxx1T1IFx6k/ viyH1wuhj5PZl2rdECNSRRUwAZfHWhqeeym3qFDECbeB5Nwb6M8clUW6FCVJteX9fpJH +Z/rARtDwQJC8IGbesYgQ8EayETI+GoNioVmTjlKBcmAd9KWzp3i/xtNLprnaFZU0yFf HRbYb6ThoDmNcJ5kb7MtrHNJN8iR9tak62i0q8eHfYGKLLJrbt+yD6NR1DFGxYU+o2wn TOjOJawpKw21N3R4Zb8s6XtV4YKSXc60GR5t8KY67iUa2OOvg7e41YjX1P5LESkw4CQV rgnQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date :subject:message-id:references:in-reply-to:to; bh=BJKYQMyUuCGcEu76JW0aG7uoOeegyNXsZRlmtblNxYI=; b=GnPUdFpyQiDLHkYP6z0tNYZ8QgJ6YmUhOIwneTf9nI6IsKRZ/5SHlUuVireAThcDXd hfwHMk8DML5+uTb4eDQaq+l5yIElgEgdwhVjmKUmf6Vv8P9vXuJaA+APuIVzg54QvX37 aqnsDQuH3veu0kiMU+DDnKnAEHuTQYPstROkEIW6pTFe6pAzF1iq15dSVDPJFe0Ai3N9 pr+eY8WdhEre+wq0qy7vFsFPaZn/kOoJR/vt/T4ToHLvs+sq+n7yt+0alAJtT6gmX+Za ibtlQaw4iS4FWUlvVoHchI7+xk6EtHx/ljniolWn7HenuaRnjps1imul8Qh8wnSREjPs cLYg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgJhnJPxt1TtmpG5VzUKbxHzOSCuayjs3YX68TRXpkct/Z4ZPJr AzLOFxC6plUu5DpYAzwfC6o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBNdGkpvbl4yE0i0n+L5SIrWHbmY3fDfYbULFTJsMSRRPd726RDXNWd28cVXbVnnHrCBOzrPg== X-Received: by 10.107.147.8 with SMTP id v8mr13066668iod.45.1506382225123; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:30:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.29] (otwaon1140w-lp130-01-174-93-56-77.dsl.bell.ca. [174.93.56.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i125sm4421911itf.1.2017.09.25.16.30.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:30:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Hein Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-B849AF78-331F-4402-A937-7C570D2C0FBC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:30:23 -0400 Message-Id: References: In-Reply-To: To: Patrick Sharp , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14G60) X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:36:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] idea post: trimming and demurrage 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: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:30:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail-B849AF78-331F-4402-A937-7C570D2C0FBC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It kills Bitcoin as a store of value. Disk space is not the problem; bandwi= dth is. The blockchain won't go to infinity as you suggest, as it is bounde= d by certain constraints. It's growth is a function of the transactions in a= block, and the number of blocks is linear in growth. =20 Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 25, 2017, at 5:54 PM, Patrick Sharp via bitcoin-dev wrote: >=20 > Hello Devs, >=20 > I am Patrick Sharp. I just graduated with a BS is computer science. Forgiv= e my ignorance. >=20 > As per bip-0002 I have scoured each bip available on the wiki to see if th= ese ideas have already been formally proposed and now as per bip-0002 post t= hese ideas here. >=20 > First and foremost I acknowledge that these ideas are not original nor new= . >=20 > Trimming and demurrage: >=20 > I am fully aware that demurrage is a prohibited change. I hereby contest. = For the record I am not a miner, I am just aware of the economics that drive= the costs of bitcoin. >=20 > Without the ability to maintain some sort of limit on the maximum length o= r size of the block chain, block chain is not only unsustainable in the long= run but becomes more and more centralized as the block chain becomes more a= nd more unwieldy. >=20 > Trimming is not a foreign concept. Old block whose transactions are now sp= ent hold no real value. Meaningful trimming is expensive and inhibited by un= spent transactions. Old unspent transactions add unnecessary and unfair burd= en. > Old transactions take up real world space that continues incur cost while t= hese transactions they do not continue to contribute to any sort of payment f= or this cost. > One can assume that anybody with access to their bitcoins has the power to= move these bitcoins from one address to another (or at least that the softw= are that holds the keys to their coins can do it for them) and it is not unf= air to require them to do so at least once every 5 to 10 years. > Given the incentive to move it or lose it and software that will do it for= them, we can assume that any bitcoin not moved is most likey therefore lost= . > moving these coins will cost a small transaction fee which is fair as thei= r transactions take up space, they need to contribute > most people who use their coins regularly will not even need to worry abou= t this as their coins are moved to a change address anyway. > one downside is that paper wallets would then have an expiration date, how= ever I do not think that a paper wallet that needs to be recycled every 5 to= 10 years is a terrible idea. > Therefore I propose that the block chain length be limited to either 2^18 b= locks (slightly less than 5 years) or 2^19 blocks, or slightly less than 10 y= ears. I propose that each time a block is mined the the oldest block(s) (no m= ore than two blocks) beyond this limit is trimmed from the chain and that it= s unspent transactions are allowed to be included in the reward of the mined= block. >=20 > This keeps the block chain from tending towards infinity. This keeps the c= osts of the miners balanced with the costs of the users. >=20 > Even though I believe this idea will have some friction, it is applicable t= o the entire community. It will be hard for some users to give up small bene= fits that they get at the great cost of miners, however miners run the game a= nd this fair proposal is in in their best interest in two different ways. I w= ould like your thoughts and suggestions. I obviously think this is a freakin= g awesome idea. I know it is quite controversial but it is the next step in e= volution that bitcoin needs to take to ensure immortality. >=20 > I come to you to ask if this has any chance of acceptance. >=20 > -Patrick > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail-B849AF78-331F-4402-A937-7C570D2C0FBC Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It kills Bitcoin as a store of value. &= nbsp;Disk space is not the problem; bandwidth is.  The blockchain won't= go to infinity as you suggest, as it is bounded by certain constraints. &nb= sp;It's growth is a function of the transactions in a block, and the number o= f blocks is linear in growth.  

Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2017, at 5:54 PM, Patrick Sharp via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat= ion.org> wrote:

Hello Devs,

I am Patrick Sharp. I= just graduated with a BS is computer science. Forgive my ignorance.

As p= er bip-0002 I have scoured each bip available on the wiki to see if these id= eas have already been formally proposed and now as per bip-0002 post these i= deas here.

First and foremost I acknowledge that these ideas are not orig= inal nor new.

Trimming and demurrage:

I am f= ully aware that demurrage is a prohibited change. I hereby contest. For the r= ecord I am not a miner, I am just aware of the economics that drive the cost= s of bitcoin.

Without the ability to maintain some s= ort of limit on the maximum length or size of the block chain, block chain i= s not only unsustainable in the long run but becomes more and more centraliz= ed as the block chain becomes more and more unwieldy.

Trimming is not a foreign concept. Old block whose transactions are now s= pent hold no real value. Meaningful trimming is expensive and inhibited by u= nspent transactions. Old unspent transactions add unnecessary and unfair bur= den.
  • Old transactions take up r= eal world space that continues incur cost while these transactions they do n= ot continue to contribute to any sort of payment for this cost.
  • One can assume that anybody with access to their b= itcoins has the power to move these bitcoins from one address to another (or= at least that the software that holds the keys to their coins can do it for= them) and it is not unfair to require them to do so at least once every 5 t= o 10 years.
    • Given the incentive t= o move it or lose it and software that will do it for them, we can assume th= at any bitcoin not moved is most likey therefore lost.
    • moving these coins will cost a small transaction fee which is f= air as their transactions take up space, they need to contribute
    • most people who use their coins regularly will not e= ven need to worry about this as their coins are moved to a change address an= yway.
  • one downside is that paper wal= lets would then have an expiration date, however I do not think that a paper= wallet that needs to be recycled every 5 to 10 years is a terrible idea.
Therefore I propose that the block chain length be limited to either 2= ^18 blocks (slightly less than 5 years) or 2^19 blocks, or slightly less tha= n 10 years. I propose that each time a block is mined the the oldest block(s= ) (no more than two blocks) beyond this limit is trimmed from the chain and t= hat its unspent transactions are allowed to be included in the reward of the= mined block.

This keeps the block chain from tending towards infin= ity. This keeps the costs of the miners balanced with the costs of the users= .

Even though I believe this i= dea will have some friction, it is applicable to the entire community. It wi= ll be hard for some users to give up small benefits that they get at the gre= at cost of miners, however miners run the game and this fair proposal is in i= n their best interest in two different ways. I would like your thoughts and s= uggestions. I obviously think this is a freaking awesome idea. I know it is q= uite controversial but it is the next step in evolution that bitcoin ne= eds to take to ensure immortality.

I come to you to ask if this ha= s any chance of acceptance.

<= /div>
-Patrick
____________________= ___________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list<= br>bitcoin-de= v@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation= .org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
= --Apple-Mail-B849AF78-331F-4402-A937-7C570D2C0FBC--