MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Patrick Sharp <psharp.x13@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:54:16 -0600
Message-ID: <CAES+R-qpBwXdROKnXW0idierJYf7pSRe3Z=KSYvcGwB_S6nXrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114fd420a0ac2d055a0a9915"
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] idea post: trimming and demurrage
Precedence: list

--001a114fd420a0ac2d055a0a9915
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hello Devs,

I am Patrick Sharp. I just graduated with a BS is computer science. Forgive
my ignorance.

As per bip-0002 I have scoured each bip available on the wiki to see if
these ideas have already been formally proposed and now as per bip-0002
post these ideas here.

First and foremost I acknowledge that these ideas are not original nor new.

Trimming and demurrage:

I am fully aware that demurrage is a prohibited change. I hereby contest.
For the record I am not a miner, I am just aware of the economics that
drive the costs of bitcoin.

Without the ability to maintain some sort of limit on the maximum length or
size of the block chain, block chain is not only unsustainable in the long
run but becomes more and more centralized as the block chain becomes more
and more unwieldy.

Trimming is not a foreign concept. Old block whose transactions are now
spent hold no real value. Meaningful trimming is expensive and inhibited by
unspent transactions. Old unspent transactions add unnecessary and unfair
burden.

   - Old transactions take up real world space that continues incur cost
   while these transactions they do not continue to contribute to any sort of
   payment for this cost.
   - One can assume that anybody with access to their bitcoins has the
   power to move these bitcoins from one address to another (or at least that
   the software that holds the keys to their coins can do it for them) and it
   is not unfair to require them to do so at least once every 5 to 10 years.
   - Given the incentive to move it or lose it and software that will do it
      for them, we can assume that any bitcoin not moved is most likey
therefore
      lost.
      - moving these coins will cost a small transaction fee which is fair
      as their transactions take up space, they need to contribute
      - most people who use their coins regularly will not even need to
      worry about this as their coins are moved to a change address anyway.
   - one downside is that paper wallets would then have an expiration date,
   however I do not think that a paper wallet that needs to be recycled every
   5 to 10 years is a terrible idea.

Therefore I propose that the block chain length be limited to either 2^18
blocks (slightly less than 5 years) or 2^19 blocks, or slightly less than
10 years. I propose that each time a block is mined the the oldest block(s)
(no more than two blocks) beyond this limit is trimmed from the chain and
that its unspent transactions are allowed to be included in the reward of
the mined block.

This keeps the block chain from tending towards infinity. This keeps the
costs of the miners balanced with the costs of the users.

Even though I believe this idea will have some friction, it is applicable
to the entire community. It will be hard for some users to give up small
benefits that they get at the great cost of miners, however miners run the
game and this fair proposal is in in their best interest in two different
ways. I would like your thoughts and suggestions. I obviously think this is
a freaking awesome idea. I know it is quite controversial but it is the
next step in evolution that bitcoin needs to take to ensure immortality.

I come to you to ask if this has any chance of acceptance.

-Patrick

--001a114fd420a0ac2d055a0a9915
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Hello Devs,</span><div st=
yle=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I am Pat=
rick Sharp. I just graduated with a BS is computer science. Forgive my igno=
rance.</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-si=
ze:12.8px">As per bip-0002 I have scoured each bip available on the wiki to=
 see if these ideas have already been formally proposed and now as per bip-=
0002 post these ideas here.</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div>=
<div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">First and foremost I acknowledge that these=
 ideas are not original nor new.</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br><=
/div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><div>Trimming and demurrage:</div><div=
><br></div><div>I am fully aware that demurrage is a prohibited change. I h=
ereby contest. For the record I am not a miner, I am just aware of the econ=
omics that drive the costs of bitcoin.</div><div><br></div><div>Without the=
 ability to maintain some sort of limit on the maximum length or size of th=
e block chain, block chain is not only unsustainable in the long run but be=
comes more and more centralized as the block chain becomes more and more un=
wieldy.</div><div><br></div><div>Trimming is not a foreign concept. Old blo=
ck whose transactions are now spent hold no real value. Meaningful trimming=
 is expensive and inhibited by unspent transactions. Old unspent transactio=
ns add unnecessary and unfair burden.</div><div><ul><li style=3D"margin-lef=
t:15px">Old transactions take up real world space that continues incur cost=
 while these transactions they do not continue to contribute to any sort of=
 payment for this cost.<br></li><li style=3D"margin-left:15px">One can assu=
me that anybody with access to their bitcoins has the power to move these b=
itcoins from one address to another (or at least that the software that hol=
ds the keys to their coins can do it for them) and it is not unfair to requ=
ire them to do so at least once every 5 to 10 years.<br></li><ul><li style=
=3D"margin-left:15px">Given the incentive to move it or lose it and softwar=
e that will do it for them, we can assume that any bitcoin not moved is mos=
t likey therefore lost.</li><li style=3D"margin-left:15px">moving these coi=
ns will cost a small transaction fee which is fair as their transactions ta=
ke up space, they need to contribute</li><li style=3D"margin-left:15px">mos=
t people who use their coins regularly will not even need to worry about th=
is as their coins are moved to a change address anyway.</li></ul><li style=
=3D"margin-left:15px">one downside is that paper wallets would then have an=
 expiration date, however I do not think that a paper wallet that needs to =
be recycled every 5 to 10 years is a terrible idea.</li></ul>Therefore I pr=
opose that the block chain length be limited to either 2^18 blocks (slightl=
y less than 5 years) or 2^19 blocks, or slightly less than 10 years. I prop=
ose that each time a block is mined the the oldest block(s) (no more than t=
wo blocks) beyond this limit is trimmed from the chain and that its unspent=
 transactions are allowed to be included in the reward of the mined block.<=
/div></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-siz=
e:12.8px">This keeps the block chain from tending towards infinity. This ke=
eps the costs of the miners balanced with the costs of the users.</div><div=
 style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><div>=
<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Even though=C2=A0I believe this idea will =
have some friction, it is applicable to the entire community. It will be ha=
rd for some users to give up small benefits that they get at the great cost=
 of miners, however miners run the game and this fair proposal is in in the=
ir best interest in two different ways. I would like your thoughts and sugg=
estions. I obviously think this is a freaking awesome idea. I know it is qu=
ite controversial=C2=A0but it is the next step in evolution that bitcoin ne=
eds to take to ensure immortality.</span></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8=
px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I come to you to ask if this =
has any chance of acceptance.</div></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><b=
r></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">-Patrick</div></div>

--001a114fd420a0ac2d055a0a9915--