1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
|
Return-Path: <prayank@tutanota.de>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1699C000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:59:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A71E40631
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:59:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tutanota.de
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id R5VS7fKMxC_e
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:59:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from w1.tutanota.de (w1.tutanota.de [81.3.6.162])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4B44062B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:59:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164])
by w1.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5595CFA03EC;
Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:59:56 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1618981196;
s=s1; d=tutanota.de;
h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Sender;
bh=vdcN5PxMy3422Yh7O6Zihrln154tzjqPtbeXO1IE/vY=;
b=WSRJDyMEEImrpCCIzBaZVa6RlFbBwCyqHJRZ1J6lDGPgpC5GyFholm6P0DvQ2/W9
XyoVi0CbiNmh11e7U4S43h+yVl6x9e2zptfUk4SdkSuU3rcu4wrXA2uiYe/pgk4fo/2
JKbYVyyXdipXylD5C00XBuA6h3LbvhFBCRh1/RlnPQ/+O4kmgXWVqq7LDOnjzFQulsY
Cs9c+yRmRZoNGg2vdAGf29CmW2MgRg8WrlNewlrq6ViAHqlRAshCzeEKCI4PRfDdnWu
zqKpNPzSQ/VcmI7ElG7K0da1qVst7AmQwaHX3/RLNstllYY9dq/6ppjXLw6TFeOHUOU
EtGWpxlsvA==
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:59:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Prayank <prayank@tutanota.de>
To: yanmaani@cock.li
Message-ID: <MYmn7jG--7-2@tutanota.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_121518_802108056.1618981196335"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:26:02 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block weight penalty for UTXO set growth
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:59:59 -0000
------=_Part_121518_802108056.1618981196335
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Yanmaani,
Incentives for UTXO consolidation already exists IMO.
1.If UTXO consolidation is done when fee rates are low (less congestion in =
mempool), it helps in saving money in lot of cases. Example:=C2=A0https://b=
itcoin.stackexchange.com/a/100811/
2.If running full node for Bitcoin, it will help in a smaller UTXO set.
In few cases it affects privacy though like post coinjoin.
TBH I couldn't understand everything you mentioned including the part in wh=
ich fees decrease is mentioned because of smaller block. Fees should increa=
se if such blocks are regularly mined and are predictable IMO. Not sure if =
everyone will agree to the other things mentioned in the proposal.
--=20
Prayank
------=_Part_121518_802108056.1618981196335
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Hello Yanmaani,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Incentives for UTXO consolidation already exists IMO.<br></div><div><br></div><div>1.If UTXO consolidation is done when fee rates are low (less congestion in mempool), it helps in saving money in lot of cases. Example: <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/100811/">https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/100811/</a><br></div><div>2.If running full node for Bitcoin, it will help in a smaller UTXO set.<br></div><div><br></div><div>In few cases it affects privacy though like post coinjoin.<br></div><div><br></div><div>TBH I couldn't understand everything you mentioned including the part in which fees decrease is mentioned because of smaller block. Fees should increase if such blocks are regularly mined and are predictable IMO. Not sure if everyone will agree to the other things mentioned in the proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Prayank</div> </body>
</html>
------=_Part_121518_802108056.1618981196335--
|
