Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YrAf0-0002R9-DU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 19:43:42 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from homie.mail.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.208] helo=homiemail-a5.g.dreamhost.com) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1YrAey-0008CJ-BJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 19:43:42 +0000 Received: from homiemail-a5.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a5.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB8DE704080; Sat, 9 May 2015 12:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.6] (cpc12-cmbg17-2-0-cust830.5-4.cable.virginm.net [86.30.131.63]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jrn@jrn.me.uk) by homiemail-a5.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD5D970407D; Sat, 9 May 2015 12:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <554E6365.4060304@jrn.me.uk> Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 20:43:33 +0100 From: Ross Nicoll User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Phillips , Pieter Wuille References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020909000604070909090202" X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [208.97.132.208 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YrAey-0008CJ-BJ Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Andreas Schildbach 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 19:43:42 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020909000604070909090202 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think potential fee subsidies for cleaning up UTXO (and/or penalties for creating more UTXO than you burn) are worth thinking about. As Gavin's post ( gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh ) indicates, UTXO cost is far higher than block storage, so charging differently for the in/out mismatches should make good economic sense. Ross On 09/05/2015 20:16, Jim Phillips wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Pieter Wuille > 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. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --------------020909000604070909090202 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think potential fee subsidies for cleaning up UTXO (and/or penalties for creating more UTXO than you burn) are worth thinking about. As Gavin's post ( gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh ) indicates, UTXO cost is far higher than block storage, so charging differently for the in/out mismatches should make good economic sense.

Ross


On 09/05/2015 20:16, Jim Phillips wrote:
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.=A0

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.=A0<= br>

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.



----------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud=20
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;11=
7567292;y


_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/l=
istinfo/bitcoin-development

--------------020909000604070909090202--