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
|
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 <jrn@jrn.me.uk>) 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 <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
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 <jim@ergophobia.org>, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
References: <CANe1mWzBy8-C+CWfwaOLxJ2wokjy8ytQUh2TkRY_Ummn1BpPzw@mail.gmail.com> <millgi$3uv$1@ger.gmane.org> <CAPg+sBiNLtDNqHML1n7UJC_hYtYCOjBuYNh-bZT8msVh9UKFUg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANe1mWzLcmqRMJHsJvATTjyJ9fEdCDb-J0KAQhardVj3Jni6ww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANe1mWzLcmqRMJHsJvATTjyJ9fEdCDb-J0KAQhardVj3Jni6ww@mail.gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=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 <pieter.wuille@gmail.com
> <mailto: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.
>
> 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
<html>
<head>
<meta content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252"
http-equiv=3D"Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
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.<br>
<br>
Ross<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 09/05/2015 20:16, Jim Phillips
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite=3D"mid:CANe1mWzLcmqRMJHsJvATTjyJ9fEdCDb-J0KAQhardVj3Jni6ww@mail.gmai=
l.com"
type=3D"cite">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:06 PM,
Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send=3D"tru=
e"
href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank"=
>pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir=3D"ltr">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. </p>
</blockquote>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir=3D"ltr">In addition, it results in more linkage
between coins/addresses used, so lower privacy.=A0</p>
</blockquote>
<div>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>
</div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir=3D"ltr">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.</p>
</blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class=3D"mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap=3D"">----------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------
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.
<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/=
clk/290420510;117567292;y">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;11=
7567292;y</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class=3D"mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap=3D"">_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@=
lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a>
<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/=
lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/l=
istinfo/bitcoin-development</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------020909000604070909090202--
|
