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
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
|
Return-Path: <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD38C000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:39:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD6F813D7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:39:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wuille.net
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id IMILqBRFhh6t
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:39:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4323.proton.ch (mail-4323.proton.ch [185.70.43.23])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC805812FF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:39:45 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 17:39:41 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wuille.net;
s=protonmail; t=1644169182;
bh=gLFuXk1nVP33SDTC6g93PlutzQ2nvIcaYgyEYI87Z1k=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
From:To:Cc;
b=cbM1AyrUFcI8+WDaPBnhcdR0tVf7jo2qpMOflV68QCd9g4sRMpWOPXbpOP7To71Rr
25ve1tbsbs4rY40oMSaS/SdCZSPJLGt1VfDFep5rTPx+SoTWEt1Damtdh5KUjk0AV6
zhQHUA1yyKw2kxsJ9T7HEG745kXn3Qcqm9dHncwWde4lUku+itfRpo85z07CuSbLkv
leoUuwWIh9hDBpJaKsU1fksjdCqimAumaQEsnrLp2StX1rmLsLf05+JxH8WK0BuBi/
ar9UuCmCoRO4t4CGu4H8bmOzrL4uC6aZbu+fEZn6V6B+maCLMwGFkBB00xLBk5ZxJT
Optl98ZcdquqA==
To: shymaa arafat <shymaa.arafat@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Reply-To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Message-ID: <c7bdbBVd0KmLFPUeYk0QUdni7tbDwJSj4HGLlEOkdPzIYzOyaX147HWJPKE-isTL267nQeJds8-rsKNyzRrBhucsZvwZcg5dZjQxDnbwxAA=@wuille.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAM98U8kJVMJOQ++cyP3WXFRSHUZw0ySp3dVuZ=BzoRj2qE4Dug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM98U8kJVMJOQ++cyP3WXFRSHUZw0ySp3dVuZ=BzoRj2qE4Dug@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 18:52:20 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A suggestion to periodically destroy (or remove
to secondary storage for Archiving reasons) dust,
Non-standard UTXOs, and also detected burn
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: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 17:39:47 -0000
> Dear Bitcoin Developers,
> -When I contacted bitInfoCharts to divide the first interval of addresses=
, they kindly did divided to 3 intervals. From here:
> https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
> -You can see that there are more than 3.1m addresses holding =E2=89=A4 0.=
000001 BTC (1000 Sat) with total value of 14.9BTC; an average of 473 Sat pe=
r address.
> -Therefore, a simple solution would be to follow the difficulty adjustmen=
t idea and just delete all those
That would be a soft-fork, and arguably could be considered theft. While co=
mmonly (but non universally) implemented standardness rules may prevent spe=
nding them currently, there is no requirement that such a rule remain in pl=
ace. Depending on how feerate economics work out in the future, such output=
s may not even remain uneconomical to spend. Therefore, dropping them entir=
ely from the UTXO set is potentially destroying potentially useful funds pe=
ople own.
> or at least remove them to secondary storage
Commonly adopted Bitcoin full nodes already have two levels of storage effe=
ctively (disk and in-RAM cache). It may be useful to investigate using amou=
nt as a heuristic about what to keep and how long. IIRC, not even every ful=
l node implementation even uses a UTXO model.
> for Archiving with extra cost to get them back, along with non-standard U=
TXOs and Burned ones (at least for publicly known, published, burn addresse=
s).
Do you mean this as a standardness rule, or a consensus rule?
* As a standardness rule it's feasible, but it makes policy (further) devia=
te from economically rational behavior. There is no reason for miners to re=
quire a higher price for spending such outputs.
* As a consensus rule, I expect something like this to be very controversia=
l. There are currently no rules that demand any minimal fee for anything, a=
nd given uncertainly over how fee levels could evolve in the future, it's u=
nclear what those rules, if any, should be.
Cheers,
--
Pieter
|
