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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gronager@ceptacle.com>) id 1TfVhL-0003AR-6u
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:04:35 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from 2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk ([90.184.5.129]
helo=mail.ceptacle.com)
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1TfVhF-0003Gp-Tq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:04:35 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40AA0270EBA5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:04:24 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceptacle.com
Received: from mail.ceptacle.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (server.ceptacle.private [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024) with ESMTP id BmCYSICu36ke
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:04:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [109.105.106.201] (unknown [109.105.106.201])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0ED14270EB98
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:04:23 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJAxGxrtqHSx4ssowg=C=Q+ajELHsEfAgjNh9W2+ExpgVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:04:22 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9B78C2C9-2B06-47F1-A99D-D36668D97B2D@ceptacle.com>
References: <80648682-E34A-455E-B34A-6BC24652C3EA@ceptacle.com>
<CA+s+GJAxGxrtqHSx4ssowg=C=Q+ajELHsEfAgjNh9W2+ExpgVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1TfVhF-0003Gp-Tq
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Chain dust mitigation: Demurrage based
Chain Vacuuming
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, 03 Dec 2012 13:04:35 -0000
> 1) Wouldn't the need to re-transact your coins to keep them safe from =
"vultures", result in people frantically sending coins to themselves, =
and thus expand the block chain, instead of reduce growth?
Not at the rate suggested
> 2) putting those hard limits in passes a value judgement that IMO =
should not be present in the protocol. <1BTC may be worth a lot some =
day, or it could go the other way around, with dust spam of 10+ BTC. =
Either way the limits will have to be changed again, with yet another =
fork.
Well, retransmitting 1BTC ones every 4 years isn't that bad. So I don't =
see a need for another fork for this reason.
> 3) The (normal) user does not have a view of his balance consisting of =
inputs and outputs of various sizes. He just sees his balance as one =
number. And somehow, inexplicably (except through a very difficult =
explanation), it's going down... what if he has 10000 BTC in 0.9999999 =
BTC units? Annnnnd it's gone after 210000 blocks.
Agree to this - and also to the fact that it will be hard to introduce - =
it would be changing the protocol quite a lot (perhaps too much).
A better set of relay fee rules rewarding a decrease in # UTXOs is =
probably the (easiest) way forward.
/M
>=20
|
