Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 17:39:41 +0000
To: shymaa arafat <shymaa.arafat@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Reply-To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Message-ID: <c7bdbBVd0KmLFPUeYk0QUdni7tbDwJSj4HGLlEOkdPzIYzOyaX147HWJPKE-isTL267nQeJds8-rsKNyzRrBhucsZvwZcg5dZjQxDnbwxAA=@wuille.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAM98U8kJVMJOQ++cyP3WXFRSHUZw0ySp3dVuZ=BzoRj2qE4Dug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM98U8kJVMJOQ++cyP3WXFRSHUZw0ySp3dVuZ=BzoRj2qE4Dug@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A suggestion to periodically destroy (or remove
	to secondary storage for Archiving reasons) dust,
	Non-standard UTXOs, and also detected burn
Precedence: list


> Dear Bitcoin Developers,

> -When I contacted bitInfoCharts to divide the first interval of addresses=
, they kindly did divided to 3 intervals. From here:
> https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
> -You can see that there are more than 3.1m addresses holding =E2=89=A4 0.=
000001 BTC (1000 Sat) with total value of 14.9BTC; an average of 473 Sat pe=
r address.

> -Therefore, a simple solution would be to follow the difficulty adjustmen=
t idea and just delete all those

That would be a soft-fork, and arguably could be considered theft. While co=
mmonly (but non universally) implemented standardness rules may prevent spe=
nding them currently, there is no requirement that such a rule remain in pl=
ace. Depending on how feerate economics work out in the future, such output=
s may not even remain uneconomical to spend. Therefore, dropping them entir=
ely from the UTXO set is potentially destroying potentially useful funds pe=
ople own.

> or at least remove them to secondary storage

Commonly adopted Bitcoin full nodes already have two levels of storage effe=
ctively (disk and in-RAM cache). It may be useful to investigate using amou=
nt as a heuristic about what to keep and how long. IIRC, not even every ful=
l node implementation even uses a UTXO model.

> for Archiving with extra cost to get them back, along with non-standard U=
TXOs and Burned ones (at least for publicly known, published, burn addresse=
s).

Do you mean this as a standardness rule, or a consensus rule?

* As a standardness rule it's feasible, but it makes policy (further) devia=
te from economically rational behavior. There is no reason for miners to re=
quire a higher price for spending such outputs.
* As a consensus rule, I expect something like this to be very controversia=
l. There are currently no rules that demand any minimal fee for anything, a=
nd given uncertainly over how fee levels could evolve in the future, it's u=
nclear what those rules, if any, should be.

Cheers,

--
Pieter