Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.171 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.171; envelope-from=jtimonmv@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qc0-f171.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0gsrd2W3ODfQRSc2k5V7GotJ0vzEAxcAjnaMtDHZ9_JA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130310043155.GA20020@savin>
	<CABOyFfp9Kd+y=SofWfq6TiR4+xeOhFL7VVHWjtrRn83HMsmPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T1rt+7BQHz1S=NVtL_YV7kfCapQ+3MEf+xyXT7pZOfq7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABOyFfrO9Xpc=Pdh_6AM1yoHRCeuHxzqL02F-ALkimmsGbheiA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABOyFfqh_VixG7SQMaQUkxU40MGY1f9JO3=OqwitHa1YoT4chQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0gsrd2W3ODfQRSc2k5V7GotJ0vzEAxcAjnaMtDHZ9_JA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:08:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CABOyFfo32xMSvxJdtuWNeCF+kRxita_bR06pbaoN1=AgPHU+eg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?CUpvcmdlIFRpbfNu?= <jtimonmv@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blocking uneconomical UTXO creation
Precedence: list

Well, my initial idea was that nothing was really needed too.
But if something must be done, I dislike very much the "ban
micropayments" approach. I was just offering other solutions that I
consider much better, but if nothing is done I won't be pushing for
those alternative solutions (to a problem that we may not even have).


On 3/11/13, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> Why does demurrage even still come up? The base rules of Bitcoin will
> not be changing in such a fundamental way.
>
> With regards to trying to minimize the size of the UTXO set, this
> again feels like a solution in search of a problem. Even with SD
> abusing micropayments as messages, it's only a few hundred megabytes
> today. That fits in RAM, let alone disk. If one day people do get
> concerned about the working set size, miners can independently set
> their own policies for what they confirm, for instance maybe they just
> bump the priority of any transaction that has fewer outputs than
> inputs. An IsStandard() rule now that tries to ban micropayments will
> just risk hurting interesting applications for no real benefit. It's
> like trying to anticipate and fix problems we might face in 2020.
>
> There are lots of less invasive changes for improving scalability,
> like making transaction validation multi-threaded in every case,
> transmitting merkle blocks instead of full blocks, moving blocking
> disk IO off the main loop so nodes don't go unresponsive when somebody
> downloads the chain from them, and finishing the payment protocol work
> so there's less incentive to replicate the SD "transactions as
> messages" design.
>


--=20
Jorge Tim=F3n

http://freico.in/
http://archive.ripple-project.org/