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
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jim@ergophobia.org>) id 1YrAFZ-0001ci-QL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 09 May 2015 19:17:25 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YrAFW-0006YU-UF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 09 May 2015 19:17:25 +0000
Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so58723284wid.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 09 May 2015 12:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=McV6KhdbsO3+Yi4JyvJe92MJKm/Z4DEypBQgc1o+F5Y=;
b=RzCsvp9O64wepDmmlKrvmZUuyeMlz7mJnS/TipCWEcp62CDnwVBaFz5jaZyhNrPSFD
C96A38ksxo5PBfb6FCpFR1ZmdFZVXmCziNmRoz65hRCg5Hlb6LD8PCI0bluioNb32cyX
NIVTdzsYcBhkqS1pgtsUtFnGt/S6bxS6H8Q0xnGfdBDcx/3FkvMshW8WC1th1ye7E4+R
GCxQwOpIoevyZzp8j/rfqlvvNkw7+zQPPPmKQiRUSl03RgrbjyE0BAaQxgrudRZPvcb+
pVMSmQo3p3XkpWf9/WC3+zuh5kgfSRa9IV4eRiudGd3IpPwahUsXi//UK1vlZn5cNlk/
wUmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkr4JGNphD86mtRzq0mwK9QXKDzFpSO8sf/oLKYTchaWtfzqlr2x1z6My7aaCvk1D985Rz
X-Received: by 10.180.73.180 with SMTP id m20mr6765705wiv.2.1431199036886;
Sat, 09 May 2015 12:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.246.69 with HTTP; Sat, 9 May 2015 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBiNLtDNqHML1n7UJC_hYtYCOjBuYNh-bZT8msVh9UKFUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANe1mWzBy8-C+CWfwaOLxJ2wokjy8ytQUh2TkRY_Ummn1BpPzw@mail.gmail.com>
<millgi$3uv$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CAPg+sBiNLtDNqHML1n7UJC_hYtYCOjBuYNh-bZT8msVh9UKFUg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia.org>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 14:16:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CANe1mWzLcmqRMJHsJvATTjyJ9fEdCDb-J0KAQhardVj3Jni6ww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7e663265dd0515aafe40
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.2 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YrAFW-0006YU-UF
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A suggestion for reducing the size of the
UTXO database
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: Sat, 09 May 2015 19:17:25 -0000
--f46d043c7e663265dd0515aafe40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It's a very complex trade-off, which is hard to optimize for all use
> cases. Using more UTXOs requires larger transactions, and thus more fees in
> general.
>
Unless the miner determines that the reduction in UTXO storage requirements
is worth the lower fee. There's no protocol level enforcement of a fee as
far as I understand it. It's enforced by the miners and their willingness
to include a transaction in a block.
> In addition, it results in more linkage between coins/addresses used, so
> lower privacy.
>
Not if you only select all the UTXOs from a single address. A wallet that
is geared more towards privacy minded individuals may want to reduce the
amount of address linkage, but a wallet geared towards the general masses
probably won't have to worry so much about that.
> The only way you can guarantee an economical reason to keep the UTXO set
> small is by actually having a consensus rule that punishes increasing its
> size.
>
There's an economical reason right now to keeping the UTXO set small. The
smaller it is, the easier it is for the individual to run a full node. The
easier it is to run a full node, the faster Bitcoin will spread to the
masses. The faster it spreads to the masses, the more valuable it becomes.
--f46d043c7e663265dd0515aafe40
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
at, May 9, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"=
mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</=
a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">It=
9;s a very complex trade-off, which is hard to optimize for all use cases. =
Using more UTXOs requires larger transactions, and thus more fees in genera=
l. </p></blockquote><div>Unless the miner determines that the reduction in =
UTXO storage requirements is worth the lower fee. There's no protocol l=
evel enforcement of a fee as far as I understand it. It's enforced by t=
he miners and their willingness to include a transaction in a block.<br></d=
iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">In addition, it results in=
more linkage between coins/addresses used, so lower privacy.=C2=A0</p></bl=
ockquote><div>Not if you only select all the UTXOs from a single address. A=
wallet that is geared more towards privacy minded individuals may want to =
reduce the amount of address linkage, but a wallet geared towards the gener=
al masses probably won't have to worry so much about that.=C2=A0<br></d=
iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">The only way you can guara=
ntee an economical reason to keep the UTXO set small is by actually having =
a consensus rule that punishes increasing its size.</p></blockquote><div>Th=
ere's an economical reason right now to keeping the UTXO set small. The=
smaller it is, the easier it is for the individual to run a full node. The=
easier it is to run a full node, the faster Bitcoin will spread to the mas=
ses. The faster it spreads to the masses, the more valuable it becomes.</di=
v><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--f46d043c7e663265dd0515aafe40--
|
