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
103
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jtimonmv@gmail.com>) id 1UF6Co-00024Q-JO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:08:10 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.171; envelope-from=jtimonmv@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qc0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-qc0-f171.google.com ([209.85.216.171])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UF6Cn-0004vr-2b
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:08:10 +0000
Received: by mail-qc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id d1so1594886qca.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.74.10 with SMTP id p10mr7413862qev.35.1363021683525; Mon,
11 Mar 2013 10:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.11.140 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0gsrd2W3ODfQRSc2k5V7GotJ0vzEAxcAjnaMtDHZ9_JA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130310043155.GA20020@savin>
<CABOyFfp9Kd+y=SofWfq6TiR4+xeOhFL7VVHWjtrRn83HMsmPBA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1rt+7BQHz1S=NVtL_YV7kfCapQ+3MEf+xyXT7pZOfq7w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABOyFfrO9Xpc=Pdh_6AM1yoHRCeuHxzqL02F-ALkimmsGbheiA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABOyFfqh_VixG7SQMaQUkxU40MGY1f9JO3=OqwitHa1YoT4chQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0gsrd2W3ODfQRSc2k5V7GotJ0vzEAxcAjnaMtDHZ9_JA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:08:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CABOyFfo32xMSvxJdtuWNeCF+kRxita_bR06pbaoN1=AgPHU+eg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?CUpvcmdlIFRpbfNu?= <jtimonmv@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(jtimonmv[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UF6Cn-0004vr-2b
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blocking uneconomical UTXO creation
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:08:10 -0000
Well, my initial idea was that nothing was really needed too.
But if something must be done, I dislike very much the "ban
micropayments" approach. I was just offering other solutions that I
consider much better, but if nothing is done I won't be pushing for
those alternative solutions (to a problem that we may not even have).
On 3/11/13, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> Why does demurrage even still come up? The base rules of Bitcoin will
> not be changing in such a fundamental way.
>
> With regards to trying to minimize the size of the UTXO set, this
> again feels like a solution in search of a problem. Even with SD
> abusing micropayments as messages, it's only a few hundred megabytes
> today. That fits in RAM, let alone disk. If one day people do get
> concerned about the working set size, miners can independently set
> their own policies for what they confirm, for instance maybe they just
> bump the priority of any transaction that has fewer outputs than
> inputs. An IsStandard() rule now that tries to ban micropayments will
> just risk hurting interesting applications for no real benefit. It's
> like trying to anticipate and fix problems we might face in 2020.
>
> There are lots of less invasive changes for improving scalability,
> like making transaction validation multi-threaded in every case,
> transmitting merkle blocks instead of full blocks, moving blocking
> disk IO off the main loop so nodes don't go unresponsive when somebody
> downloads the chain from them, and finishing the payment protocol work
> so there's less incentive to replicate the SD "transactions as
> messages" design.
>
--=20
Jorge Tim=F3n
http://freico.in/
http://archive.ripple-project.org/
|
