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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 983C9D56
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 13 Dec 2015 02:07:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f181.google.com (mail-io0-f181.google.com
[209.85.223.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B550133
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 13 Dec 2015 02:07:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioae126 with SMTP id e126so13485977ioa.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 12 Dec 2015 18:07:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=/qcbeU8YFs9R2hnBHzkV6Ok+V2s51yIOPll9pSzs4Qo=;
b=Qlgj9jNYN2S3Kd0a9d4NLrZiFgbEgaVOpPO+EhAdpAFZNiKMdcbQWbl8TZq3vggnDn
Rg2Om4YOpwuVNGS30+96Gy+lApnpznSpj8zBi0Xyc+flE2gqQAtvlnUzpZadx5SsBOYI
C6TMOMbiDP0jH99y9nQmfp61hbFq4NqB2Z2nJr8JPGe0DENDwBptwv3WIuJz+5SSDlO1
wOjRi17TwhEArt9qJ/4FtaJe6S8pzOiPhm5+WqSgZLG5HM46k5IxQFXtTVGj4DWwjin5
Wwm3/Blle8RVkHR67C3UfqYALKDXfb9f4h3vxHDex3JTVKgyrdQmPv/NOBwp/Nx/VySM
70gA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.34.199 with SMTP id i190mr24506717ioi.150.1449972456801;
Sat, 12 Dec 2015 18:07:36 -0800 (PST)
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.192.70 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 18:07:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACrzPenXGQZBrx8QC+1QE2oCE3N=qmfgc_OWrowtjtLjGkZrRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50e629572d8de852eb789d50b34da308@xbt.hk>
<1449961269.2210.5.camel@yahoo.com>
<CACrzPenXGQZBrx8QC+1QE2oCE3N=qmfgc_OWrowtjtLjGkZrRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 02:07:36 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: OqBKDTbqoMlNHvdjLBlv2_lc4Xs
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQi7aiwyOaVBiMbp6t9D58aFAmDdKPzFiscB6ouGzBK6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
To: Vincent Truong <vincent.truong@procabiak.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 13 Dec 2015 02:07:37 -0000
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> have run a node/kept their utxo before they were aware of this change and
> then realise miners have discarded their utxo. Oops?
I believe you have misunderstood jl2012's post. His post does not
cause the outputs to become discarded. They are still spendable,
but the transactions must carry a membership proof to spend them.
They don't have to have stored the data themselves, but they must
get it from somewhere-- including archive nodes that serve this
purpose rather than having every full node carry all that data forever.
Please be conservative with the send button. The list loses its
utility if every moderately complex idea is hit with reflexive
opposition by people who don't understand it.
Peter Todd has proposed something fairly similar with "STXO
commitments". The primary argument against this kind of approach that
I'm aware of is that the membership proofs get pretty big, and if too
aggressive this trades bandwidth for storage, and storage is usually
the cheaper resource. Though at least the membership proofs could be
omitted when transmitting to a node which has signaled that it has
kept the historical data anyways.
|
