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
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
|
Return-Path: <jlrubin@mit.edu>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53B31B14
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 19:58:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:01 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu
[18.9.25.15])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEC163D9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 19:58:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-AuditID: 1209190f-8fdff70000000f46-1f-59725ba5fbe2
Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35])
(using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by dmz-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP
id 88.7A.03910.5AB52795; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:53:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11])
by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id v6LJr807032425
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:53:08 -0400
Received: from mail-yb0-f170.google.com (mail-yb0-f170.google.com
[209.85.213.170]) (authenticated bits=0)
(User authenticated as jlrubin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id v6LJr6nH009457
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT)
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:53:07 -0400
Received: by mail-yb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w187so14333862ybc.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 12:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111rWWr0J32S0hKyF8x+eY56/saeg0nBLqrAgtXCcTd3ERyh9AUq
S3WWR2xkSAOSoJeOoi3KZnI1FccTpQ==
X-Received: by 10.37.164.34 with SMTP id f31mr6964426ybi.317.1500666786189;
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 12:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.28.133 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 12:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAU88OoR7U3-hg9Mbf6iNB2V-V5Omd1y2UP7hwouc0jbwPPqgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAU88OoR7U3-hg9Mbf6iNB2V-V5Omd1y2UP7hwouc0jbwPPqgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:52:45 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5xwhiYfGcH6Bt2ESFAoR7pt9-vC1zXio3pk1X-h60m_QMqZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhiYfGcH6Bt2ESFAoR7pt9-vC1zXio3pk1X-h60m_QMqZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Major Kusanagi <majorkusanagibtc@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c6e54b7a1cc0554d936be"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrFKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrLs0uijS4PEEHYum17YOjB6/f0xm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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 19:58:13 -0000
--f403045c6e54b7a1cc0554d936be
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Major,
I think that you'll enjoy Peter Todd's blogpost on TXO commitments[1]. It
has a better scalability improvement with fewer negative consequence.
Best,
Jeremy
[1] https://petertodd.org/2016/delayed-txo-commitments
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Major Kusanagi via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a scaling solution idea that I would be interested in getting some
> feedback on. I=E2=80=99m new to the mailing list and have not been in the=
Bitcoin
> space as long as some have been, so I don=E2=80=99t know if anyone has th=
ought of
> this idea.
>
> Arguably the biggest scaling problem for Bitcoin is the unbounded UTXO
> growth. Current scaling solutions like Segregated Witness, Lighting
> Network, and larger blocks does not address this issue. As more and more
> blocks are added to the block chain the size of the UTXO set that miners
> have to maintain continues to grow. This is the case even if the block si=
ze
> were to remain at 1 megabyte. There is no way out of solving this
> fundamental scaling problem other then to limit the maximum size of the
> UTXO set.
>
> The following soft fork solution is proposed. Any UTXO that is not spent
> within a set number of blocks is considered invalid. What this means for
> miners and nodes in the Bitcoin network is that they only have to ever
> store that set number of blocks. In others words the block chain will nev=
er
> be larger then the set number of blocks and the size of the block chain i=
s
> capped.
>
> But what this means for users is that bitcoins that have not been spent
> for a long time are =E2=80=9Clost=E2=80=9D forever. This proposed solutio=
n is likely a
> difficult thing for Bitcoin users to accept. What Bitcoin users will
> experience is that all of a sudden their bitcoins are spendable one momen=
t
> and the next moment they are not. The experience that they get is that al=
l
> of a sudden their old bitcoins are gone forever.
>
> The solution can be improved by adding this new mechanism to Bitcoin, tha=
t
> I will call luster. UTXO=E2=80=99s that are less then X blocks old has no=
t lost any
> luster and have a luster value of 1. As UTXO=E2=80=99s get older, the lus=
ter value
> will continuously decrease until the UTXO=E2=80=99s become Z blocks old (=
where Z >
> X), and has lost all it=E2=80=99s luster and have a luster value of 0. UT=
XO=E2=80=99s that
> are in between X and Z blocks old have a luster value between 0 and 1. Th=
e
> luster value is then used to compute the amount of bitcoins that must be
> burned in order for a transaction with that UTXO to be included in a bloc=
k.
> So for example, a UTXO with a luster value of 0.5 must burn at least 50
> percent of its bitcoin value, a UTXO with a luster value of 0.25 must bur=
n
> at least 75 percent of its bitcoin value, and a UTXO with a luster value =
of
> 0 must burn 100 percent of its bitcoin value. Thus the coins/UTXOs that
> have a luster value of 0 means it has no monetary value, and it would be
> safe for bitcoins nodes to drop those UTXOs from the set they maintain.
>
> The idea is that coins that are continuously being used in Bitcoin econom=
y
> will never lose it=E2=80=99s luster. But coins that are old and not circu=
lating
> will start to lose its luster up until all luster is lost and they become
> valueless. Or they reenter the economy and regains all its luster.
>
> But at what point should coins start losing their luster? A goal would be
> that we want to minimize the scenarios of when coins start losing their
> luster. One reasonable answer is that coins should only starting losing i=
ts
> luster after the lifespan of the average human. The idea being that a
> person will eventually have to spend all his coins before he dies,
> otherwise it will get lost anyways (assuming that only the dying person h=
as
> the ability to spend those coins). Otherwise there are few cases where a
> person would never spend their bitcoins in there human life time. One
> example is in the case of inheritance where a dying person does not want =
to
> spend his remaining coins and have another person take them over. But wit=
h
> this propose scaling solution, coins can be stilled inherited, but it wou=
ld
> have to be an on-chain inheritance. The longest lifespan of a human
> currently is about 120 years old. So a blockchain that stores the last 15=
0
> years of history seems like one reasonable option.
>
> Then the question of how large blocks should be is simply a matter of wha=
t
> is the disk size requirement for a full node. For simplicity, assuming th=
at
> a block is created every 10 minute, the blockchain size in terabyte can b=
e
> express as the following.
> blockSize MB * 6 * 24 * 365 * years /1000000 =3D blockchainSize TB
>
> Example values:
> blockSize =3D 1MB, years =3D 150 -> blockchainSize =3D 7.884 TB
> blockSize =3D 2MB, years =3D 150 -> blockchainSize =3D 15.768 TB
>
> So if we don=E2=80=99t want the block chain to be bigger then 8 TB, then =
we should
> have a block size of 1 MB. If we don=E2=80=99t want the block chain to be=
bigger
> then 16 TB, then we should have a block size of 2 MB and so on. The idea =
is
> that base on how cheap disk space gets, we can adjust the target max bloc=
k
> chain size and the block size accordingly.
>
> I believe that this proposal is a good solution to the UTXO growth
> problem. The proposal being a soft fork is a big plus. It also keeps the
> block chain size finite even if given a infinite amount of time. But ther=
e
> are other things to considered, like how best should wallet software hand=
le
> this? How can this work with sidechains? More thought would need to be pu=
t
> into this. But the fact is that if we want to make bitcoins last forever,
> we have the accept unbounded UTXO growth, which is unscalable. So the onl=
y
> solution is to limit UTXO growth, meaning bitcoins cannot last forever.
> This proposed solution however does not prevent Bitcoin from lasting
> forever.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
--f403045c6e54b7a1cc0554d936be
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,he=
lvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Hi Major,<br><br></div=
><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-ser=
if;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">I think that you'll enjoy Peter To=
dd's blogpost on TXO commitments[1]. It has a better scalability improv=
ement with fewer negative consequence.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_def=
ault" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color=
:rgb(0,0,0)">Best,<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-=
family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Jeremy<=
br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,=
sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br><br><br>[1] <a href=3D"htt=
ps://petertodd.org/2016/delayed-txo-commitments">https://petertodd.org/2016=
/delayed-txo-commitments</a><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br =
clear=3D"all"><div><br clear=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmail_signature" da=
ta-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">--<br><a href=3D"https://=
twitter.com/JeremyRubin" target=3D"_blank">@JeremyRubin</a><a href=3D"https=
://twitter.com/JeremyRubin" target=3D"_blank"></a></div></div></div>
</div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Major Kusan=
agi via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div=
><div>Hi all,<br></div><div><br></div><div>I have a scaling solution idea t=
hat I would be interested in getting some feedback on. I=E2=80=99m new to t=
he mailing list and have not been in the Bitcoin space as long as some have=
been, so I don=E2=80=99t know if anyone has thought of this idea.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>Arguably the biggest scaling problem for Bitcoin is the un=
bounded UTXO growth. Current scaling solutions like Segregated Witness, Lig=
hting Network, and larger blocks does not address this issue. As more and m=
ore blocks are added to the block chain the size of the UTXO set that miner=
s have to maintain continues to grow. This is the case even if the block si=
ze were to remain at 1 megabyte. There is no way out of solving this fundam=
ental scaling problem other then to limit the maximum size of the UTXO set.=
</div><div><br></div><div>The following soft fork solution is proposed. Any=
UTXO that is not spent within a set number of blocks is considered invalid=
. What this means for miners and nodes in the Bitcoin network is that they =
only have to ever store that set number of blocks. In others words the bloc=
k chain will never be larger then the set number of blocks and the size of =
the block chain is capped.</div><div><br></div><div>But what this means for=
users is that bitcoins that have not been spent for a long time are =E2=80=
=9Clost=E2=80=9D forever. This proposed solution is likely a difficult thin=
g for Bitcoin users to accept. What Bitcoin users will experience is that a=
ll of a sudden their bitcoins are spendable one moment and the next moment =
they are not. The experience that they get is that all of a sudden their ol=
d bitcoins are gone forever.</div><div><br></div><div>The solution can be i=
mproved by adding this new mechanism to Bitcoin, that I will call luster. U=
TXO=E2=80=99s that are less then X blocks old has not lost any luster and h=
ave a luster value of 1. As UTXO=E2=80=99s get older, the luster value will=
continuously decrease until the UTXO=E2=80=99s become Z blocks old (where =
Z > X), and has lost all it=E2=80=99s luster and have a luster value of =
0. UTXO=E2=80=99s that are in between X and Z blocks old have a luster valu=
e between 0 and 1. The luster value is then used to compute the amount of b=
itcoins that must be burned in order for a transaction with that UTXO to be=
included in a block. So for example, a UTXO with a luster value of 0.5 mus=
t burn at least 50 percent of its bitcoin value, a UTXO with a luster value=
of 0.25 must burn at least 75 percent of its bitcoin value, and a UTXO wit=
h a luster value of 0 must burn 100 percent of its bitcoin value. Thus the =
coins/UTXOs that have a luster value of 0 means it has no monetary value, a=
nd it would be safe for bitcoins nodes to drop those UTXOs from the set the=
y maintain.</div><div><br></div><div>The idea is that coins that are contin=
uously being used in Bitcoin economy will never lose it=E2=80=99s luster. B=
ut coins that are old and not circulating will start to lose its luster up =
until all luster is lost and they become valueless. Or they reenter the eco=
nomy and regains all its luster.</div><div><br></div><div>But at what point=
should coins start losing their luster? A goal would be that we want to mi=
nimize the scenarios of when coins start losing their luster. One reasonabl=
e answer is that coins should only starting losing its luster after the lif=
espan of the average human. The idea being that a person will eventually ha=
ve to spend all his coins before he dies, otherwise it will get lost anyway=
s (assuming that only the dying person has the ability to spend those coins=
). Otherwise there are few cases where a person would never spend their bit=
coins in there human life time. One example is in the case of inheritance w=
here a dying person does not want to spend his remaining coins and have ano=
ther person take them over. But with this propose scaling solution, coins c=
an be stilled inherited, but it would have to be an on-chain inheritance. T=
he longest lifespan of a human currently is about 120 years old. So a block=
chain that stores the last 150 years of history seems like one reasonable o=
ption.</div><div><br></div><div>Then the question of how large blocks shoul=
d be is simply a matter of what is the disk size requirement for a full nod=
e. For simplicity, assuming that a block is created every 10 minute, the bl=
ockchain size in terabyte can be express as the following.</div><div>blockS=
ize MB * 6 * 24 * 365 * years /1000000 =3D blockchainSize TB</div><div><br>=
</div><div>Example values:</div><div>blockSize =3D 1MB, years =3D 150 ->=
blockchainSize =3D 7.884 TB</div><div>blockSize =3D 2MB, years =3D 150 -&g=
t; blockchainSize =3D 15.768 TB</div><div><br></div><div>So if we don=E2=80=
=99t want the block chain to be bigger then 8 TB, then we should have a blo=
ck size of 1 MB. If we don=E2=80=99t want the block chain to be bigger then=
16 TB, then we should have a block size of 2 MB and so on. The idea is tha=
t base on how cheap disk space gets, we can adjust the target max block cha=
in size and the block size accordingly.</div><div><br></div><div>I believe =
that this proposal is a good solution to the UTXO growth problem. The propo=
sal being a soft fork is a big plus. It also keeps the block chain size fin=
ite even if given a infinite amount of time. But there are other things to =
considered, like how best should wallet software handle this? How can this =
work with sidechains? More thought would need to be put into this. But the =
fact is that if we want to make bitcoins last forever, we have the accept u=
nbounded UTXO growth, which is unscalable. So the only solution is to limit=
UTXO growth, meaning bitcoins cannot last forever. This proposed solution =
however does not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever.</div><div><br></div>=
</div>
</div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--f403045c6e54b7a1cc0554d936be--
|