summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/42/a41488a9cb355eca5989b3bd6ab10459bdbbe4
blob: bca0adbfe9cafafa201cd4c8c4c2066cfaa9798b (plain)
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
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1YrSJF-0003KL-2h
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 10 May 2015 14:34:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.218.48 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.218.48; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-oi0-f48.google.com; 
Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com ([209.85.218.48])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YrSJC-0006Xy-5W
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 10 May 2015 14:34:25 +0000
Received: by oift201 with SMTP id t201so88321731oif.3
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sun, 10 May 2015 07:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=DPsoIXgx5S6C++/oIPTRp/+j8sxK5AUXV/DVt/SG0Nk=;
	b=jetxZXZXmo72giuKJMeA4X9J7CkCEogth4l8WTKWFjJdFYMmG8g0R+w/qFef8xLRgi
	d4e9xYCkTVYIsIEeJ90oc40ayClFTJIPvVXl0MAa1Yrmw+gtK32yVIbGcyJezEpWsJTA
	L00bdGsA6GcqWw9GqyWTYa30ipAEUioa95pA+YiwusYnJ8GBRwAUby8HB8cEehNRBxf3
	Y9mKJynkWpcivZknS8DQhEGl95+3/021TbDflyJrOS6X2kh2ihhx7o+dhl8DyxCX/T3/
	XUGk2DpYhs9WBMsSsUt/Qbi67VhHgYBOjp0XLv9p77acNyfuUikvTOTbv7YsqBci7DEm
	toPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmW3F8UFUUYFc3CCcTgOdhIs6iWFy1N+In/f4WJyhFqMXBIiWA8geili/OmC8Abf+2y1Mnx
X-Received: by 10.202.59.213 with SMTP id i204mr4657798oia.120.1431268456588; 
	Sun, 10 May 2015 07:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Sun, 10 May 2015 07:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150510133525.GD6182@mcelrath.org>
References: <CANe1mWzBy8-C+CWfwaOLxJ2wokjy8ytQUh2TkRY_Ummn1BpPzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150510133525.GD6182@mcelrath.org>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 10:33:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0NOQkCk=JGoTyNBz8OgKYy_G+M0+a3DP6fGKjsaWq2-aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob McElrath <bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org>, Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cf46aeefdaa0515bb27a1
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	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 T_REMOTE_IMAGE         Message contains an external image
	-0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YrSJC-0006Xy-5W
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: Sun, 10 May 2015 14:34:25 -0000

--001a113cf46aeefdaa0515bb27a1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

This has been frequently explored on IRC.

My general conclusion is "dollar bills" - pick highly common denominations
of bitcoins.  Aggregate to obtain these denominations, but do not aggregate
further.

This permits merge avoidance (privacy++), easy coinjoin where many hide in
the noise (privacy++), wallet dust de-fragmentation, while avoiding the
over-aggregation problem where you have consolidated down to one output.

Thus a wallet would have several consolidation targets.

Another strategy is simply doubling outputs.  Say you pay 0.1 BTC to
Starbucks.  Add another 0.1 BTC output to yourself, and a final change
output.  Who can say which output goes to Starbucks?

There are many iterations and trade-offs between fragmentation and privacy.









On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Bob McElrath <bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org>
wrote:

> This is my biggest headache with practical bitcoin usage. I'd love to hear
> it if
> anyone has any clever solutions to the wallet/utxo locked problem. Spending
> unconfirmed outputs really requires a different security model on the part
> of
> the receiver than #confirmations, but isn't inherently bad if the receiver
> has a
> better security model and knows how to compute the probability that an
> unconfirmed-spend will get confirmed. Of course the bigger problem is
> wallet
> software that refuses to spend unconfirmed outputs.
>
> I've thought a bit about a fork/merge design: if the change were computed
> by the
> network instead of the submitter, two transactions having the same change
> address and a common input could be straightforwardly merged or split (in a
> reorg), where with bitcoin currently it would be considered a
> double-spend.  Of
> course that has big privacy implications since it directly exposes the
> change
> address, and is a hard fork, but is much closer to what people expect of a
> debit-based "account" in traditional banking.
>
> The fact of the matter is that having numerous sequential debits on an
> account
> is an extremely common use case, and bitcoin is obtuse in this respect.
>
> On May 9, 2015 1:09:32 PM EDT, Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia.org> wrote:
> >Forgive me if this idea has been suggested before, but I made this
> >suggestion on reddit and I got some feedback recommending I also bring
> >it
> >to this list -- so here goes.
> >
> >I wonder if there isn't perhaps a simpler way of dealing with UTXO
> >growth.
> >What if, rather than deal with the issue at the protocol level, we deal
> >with it at the source of the problem -- the wallets. Right now, the
> >typical
> >wallet selects only the minimum number of unspent outputs when building
> >a
> >transaction. The goal is to keep the transaction size to a minimum so
> >that
> >the fee stays low. Consequently, lots of unspent outputs just don't get
> >used, and are left lying around until some point in the future.
> >
> >What if we started designing wallets to consolidate unspent outputs?
> >When
> >selecting unspent outputs for a transaction, rather than choosing just
> >the
> >minimum number from a particular address, why not select them ALL? Take
> >all
> >of the UTXOs from a particular address or wallet, send however much
> >needs
> >to be spent to the payee, and send the rest back to the same address or
> >a
> >change address as a single output? Through this method, we should wind
> >up
> >shrinking the UTXO database over time rather than growing it with each
> >transaction. Obviously, as Bitcoin gains wider adoption, the UTXO
> >database
> >will grow, simply because there are 7 billion people in the world, and
> >eventually a good percentage of them will have one or more wallets with
> >spendable bitcoin. But this idea could limit the growth at least.
> >
> >The vast majority of users are running one of a handful of different
> >wallet
> >apps: Core, Electrum; Armory; Mycelium; Breadwallet; Coinbase; Circle;
> >Blockchain.info; and maybe a few others. The developers of all these
> >wallets have a vested interest in the continued usefulness of Bitcoin,
> >and
> >so should not be opposed to changing their UTXO selection algorithms to
> >one
> >that reduces the UTXO database instead of growing it.
> >
> >>From the miners perspective, even though these types of transactions
> >would
> >be larger, the fee could stay low. Miners actually benefit from them in
> >that it reduces the amount of storage they need to dedicate to holding
> >the
> >UTXO. So miners are incentivized to mine these types of transactions
> >with a
> >higher priority despite a low fee.
> >
> >Relays could also get in on the action and enforce this type of
> >behavior by
> >refusing to relay or deprioritizing the relay of transactions that
> >don't
> >use all of the available UTXOs from the addresses used as inputs.
> >Relays
> >are not only the ones who benefit the most from a reduction of the UTXO
> >database, they're also in the best position to promote good behavior.
> >
> >--
> >*James G. Phillips IV*
> ><https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts>
> >
> >*"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of
> >immortals."
> >-- David Ogilvy*
> >
> >*This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think
> >twice
> >before printing.*
> >
> >
> >!DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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
> >
> >!DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Bitcoin-development mailing list
> >Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> >
> >
> >!DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> This is my biggest headache with practical bitcoin usage. I'd love to hear
> it if anyone has any clever solutions to the wallet/utxo locked problem.
> Spending unconfirmed outputs really requires a different security model on
> the part of the receiver than #confirmations, but isn't inherently bad if
> the receiver has a better security model and knows how to compute the
> probability that an unconfirmed-spend will get confirmed. Of course the
> bigger problem is wallet software that refuses to spend unconfirmed outputs.
>
> I've thought a bit about a fork/merge design: if the change were computed
> by the network instead of the submitter, two transactions having the same
> change address could be straightforwardly merged or split (in a reorg). Of
> course that has big privacy implications and is pretty far from bitcoin's
> design, but is much closer to what people expect of a debit-based "account"
> in traditional banking.
>
> The fact of the matter is that having numerous sequential debits on an
> account is an extremely common use case, and bitcoin is obtuse in this
> respect.
>
> On May 9, 2015 1:09:32 PM EDT, Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia.org> wrote:
>>
>> Forgive me if this idea has been suggested before, but I made this
>> suggestion on reddit and I got some feedback recommending I also bring it
>> to this list -- so here goes.
>>
>> I wonder if there isn't perhaps a simpler way of dealing with UTXO
>> growth. What if, rather than deal with the issue at the protocol level, we
>> deal with it at the source of the problem -- the wallets. Right now, the
>> typical wallet selects only the minimum number of unspent outputs when
>> building a transaction. The goal is to keep the transaction size to a
>> minimum so that the fee stays low. Consequently, lots of unspent outputs
>> just don't get used, and are left lying around until some point in the
>> future.
>>
>> What if we started designing wallets to consolidate unspent outputs? When
>> selecting unspent outputs for a transaction, rather than choosing just the
>> minimum number from a particular address, why not select them ALL? Take all
>> of the UTXOs from a particular address or wallet, send however much needs
>> to be spent to the payee, and send the rest back to the same address or a
>> change address as a single output? Through this method, we should wind up
>> shrinking the UTXO database over time rather than growing it with each
>> transaction. Obviously, as Bitcoin gains wider adoption, the UTXO database
>> will grow, simply because there are 7 billion people in the world, and
>> eventually a good percentage of them will have one or more wallets with
>> spendable bitcoin. But this idea could limit the growth at least.
>>
>> The vast majority of users are running one of a handful of different
>> wallet apps: Core, Electrum; Armory; Mycelium; Breadwallet; Coinbase;
>> Circle; Blockchain.info; and maybe a few others. The developers of all
>> these wallets have a vested interest in the continued usefulness of
>> Bitcoin, and so should not be opposed to changing their UTXO selection
>> algorithms to one that reduces the UTXO database instead of growing it.
>>
>> From the miners perspective, even though these types of transactions
>> would be larger, the fee could stay low. Miners actually benefit from them
>> in that it reduces the amount of storage they need to dedicate to holding
>> the UTXO. So miners are incentivized to mine these types of transactions
>> with a higher priority despite a low fee.
>>
>> Relays could also get in on the action and enforce this type of behavior
>> by refusing to relay or deprioritizing the relay of transactions that don't
>> use all of the available UTXOs from the addresses used as inputs. Relays
>> are not only the ones who benefit the most from a reduction of the UTXO
>> database, they're also in the best position to promote good behavior.
>>
>> --
>> *James G. Phillips IV*
>> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts>
>>
>> *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of
>> immortals." -- David Ogilvy*
>>
>>  *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think
>> twice before printing.*
>>  !DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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
>>
>> !DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>> !DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlVPXp0ACgkQjwioWRGe9K1+2ACfViY0D2ksVFe29SwhxbtmNSC3
> TQAAnRoJLI9wW3DQRPqQ7PorKxelC2S2
> =Er51
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>


-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

--001a113cf46aeefdaa0515bb27a1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>This has been frequently explored=
 on IRC.<br><br></div>My general conclusion is &quot;dollar bills&quot; - p=
ick highly common denominations of bitcoins.=C2=A0 Aggregate to obtain thes=
e denominations, but do not aggregate further.<br><br></div>This permits me=
rge avoidance (privacy++), easy coinjoin where many hide in the noise (priv=
acy++), wallet dust de-fragmentation, while avoiding the over-aggregation p=
roblem where you have consolidated down to one output.<br><br></div>Thus a =
wallet would have several consolidation targets.<br><br></div>Another strat=
egy is simply doubling outputs.=C2=A0 Say you pay 0.1 BTC to Starbucks.=C2=
=A0 Add another 0.1 BTC output to yourself, and a final change output.=C2=
=A0 Who can say which output goes to Starbucks?<br><br></div>There are many=
 iterations and trade-offs between fragmentation and privacy.<br><br><br><d=
iv><br><div><br><br><div><br><br><div><br></div></div></div></div></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, May 10, 2015=
 at 9:35 AM, Bob McElrath <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bob_bitco=
in@mcelrath.org" target=3D"_blank">bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This is my biggest headache with p=
ractical bitcoin usage. I&#39;d love to hear it if<br>
anyone has any clever solutions to the wallet/utxo locked problem. Spending=
<br>
unconfirmed outputs really requires a different security model on the part =
of<br>
the receiver than #confirmations, but isn&#39;t inherently bad if the recei=
ver has a<br>
better security model and knows how to compute the probability that an<br>
unconfirmed-spend will get confirmed. Of course the bigger problem is walle=
t<br>
software that refuses to spend unconfirmed outputs.<br>
<br>
I&#39;ve thought a bit about a fork/merge design: if the change were comput=
ed by the<br>
network instead of the submitter, two transactions having the same change<b=
r>
address and a common input could be straightforwardly merged or split (in a=
<br>
reorg), where with bitcoin currently it would be considered a double-spend.=
=C2=A0 Of<br>
course that has big privacy implications since it directly exposes the chan=
ge<br>
address, and is a hard fork, but is much closer to what people expect of a<=
br>
debit-based &quot;account&quot; in traditional banking.<br>
<br>
The fact of the matter is that having numerous sequential debits on an acco=
unt<br>
is an extremely common use case, and bitcoin is obtuse in this respect.<br>
<div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On May 9, 2015 1:09:32 PM EDT, Jim Phillips &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jim@ergop=
hobia.org">jim@ergophobia.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;Forgive me if this idea has been suggested before, but I made this<br>
&gt;suggestion on reddit and I got some feedback recommending I also bring<=
br>
&gt;it<br>
&gt;to this list -- so here goes.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;I wonder if there isn&#39;t perhaps a simpler way of dealing with UTXO<=
br>
&gt;growth.<br>
&gt;What if, rather than deal with the issue at the protocol level, we deal=
<br>
&gt;with it at the source of the problem -- the wallets. Right now, the<br>
&gt;typical<br>
&gt;wallet selects only the minimum number of unspent outputs when building=
<br>
&gt;a<br>
&gt;transaction. The goal is to keep the transaction size to a minimum so<b=
r>
&gt;that<br>
&gt;the fee stays low. Consequently, lots of unspent outputs just don&#39;t=
 get<br>
&gt;used, and are left lying around until some point in the future.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;What if we started designing wallets to consolidate unspent outputs?<br=
>
&gt;When<br>
&gt;selecting unspent outputs for a transaction, rather than choosing just<=
br>
&gt;the<br>
&gt;minimum number from a particular address, why not select them ALL? Take=
<br>
&gt;all<br>
&gt;of the UTXOs from a particular address or wallet, send however much<br>
&gt;needs<br>
&gt;to be spent to the payee, and send the rest back to the same address or=
<br>
&gt;a<br>
&gt;change address as a single output? Through this method, we should wind<=
br>
&gt;up<br>
&gt;shrinking the UTXO database over time rather than growing it with each<=
br>
&gt;transaction. Obviously, as Bitcoin gains wider adoption, the UTXO<br>
&gt;database<br>
&gt;will grow, simply because there are 7 billion people in the world, and<=
br>
&gt;eventually a good percentage of them will have one or more wallets with=
<br>
&gt;spendable bitcoin. But this idea could limit the growth at least.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;The vast majority of users are running one of a handful of different<br=
>
&gt;wallet<br>
&gt;apps: Core, Electrum; Armory; Mycelium; Breadwallet; Coinbase; Circle;<=
br>
&gt;Blockchain.info; and maybe a few others. The developers of all these<br=
>
&gt;wallets have a vested interest in the continued usefulness of Bitcoin,<=
br>
&gt;and<br>
&gt;so should not be opposed to changing their UTXO selection algorithms to=
<br>
&gt;one<br>
&gt;that reduces the UTXO database instead of growing it.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;From the miners perspective, even though these types of transaction=
s<br>
&gt;would<br>
&gt;be larger, the fee could stay low. Miners actually benefit from them in=
<br>
&gt;that it reduces the amount of storage they need to dedicate to holding<=
br>
&gt;the<br>
&gt;UTXO. So miners are incentivized to mine these types of transactions<br=
>
&gt;with a<br>
&gt;higher priority despite a low fee.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;Relays could also get in on the action and enforce this type of<br>
&gt;behavior by<br>
&gt;refusing to relay or deprioritizing the relay of transactions that<br>
&gt;don&#39;t<br>
&gt;use all of the available UTXOs from the addresses used as inputs.<br>
&gt;Relays<br>
&gt;are not only the ones who benefit the most from a reduction of the UTXO=
<br>
&gt;database, they&#39;re also in the best position to promote good behavio=
r.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;--<br>
</div></div><span class=3D"">&gt;*James G. Phillips IV*<br>
&gt;&lt;<a href=3D"https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts"=
 target=3D"_blank">https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts<=
/a>&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
</span>&gt;*&quot;Don&#39;t bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the com=
pany of<br>
&gt;immortals.&quot;<br>
&gt;-- David Ogilvy*<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;*This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think<br=
>
&gt;twice<br>
&gt;before printing.*<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;!DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-<br>
<span class=3D"">&gt;<br>
&gt;-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<br>
&gt;One dashboard for servers and applications across<br>
&gt;Physical-Virtual-Cloud<br>
&gt;Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications<br>
&gt;Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable<br>
&gt;Insights<br>
&gt;Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.<br>
&gt;<a href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y</a><=
br>
&gt;<br>
</span>&gt;!DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-<br>
<span class=3D"">&gt;<br>
&gt;_______________________________________________<br>
&gt;Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
&gt;<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-de=
velopment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
&gt;<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-develop=
ment" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoi=
n-development</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
</span>&gt;!DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.<br>
</font></span><br><div>This is my biggest headache with practical bitcoin u=
sage. I&#39;d love to hear it if anyone has any clever solutions to the wal=
let/utxo locked problem. Spending unconfirmed outputs really requires a dif=
ferent security model on the part of the receiver than #confirmations, but =
isn&#39;t inherently bad if the receiver has a better security model and kn=
ows how to compute the probability that an unconfirmed-spend will get confi=
rmed. Of course the bigger problem is wallet software that refuses to spend=
 unconfirmed outputs.<br>
<br>
I&#39;ve thought a bit about a fork/merge design: if the change were comput=
ed by the network instead of the submitter, two transactions having the sam=
e change address could be straightforwardly merged or split (in a reorg). O=
f course that has big privacy implications and is pretty far from bitcoin&#=
39;s design, but is much closer to what people expect of a debit-based &quo=
t;account&quot; in traditional banking.<br>
<br>
The fact of the matter is that having numerous sequential debits on an acco=
unt is an extremely common use case, and bitcoin is obtuse in this respect.=
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On May 9, 2015 1:09:32 PM EDT, Jim Phill=
ips &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jim@ergophobia.org" target=3D"_blank">jim@ergopho=
bia.org</a>&gt; wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0pt=
 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Forgive me if this idea has been suggested before, bu=
t I made this suggestion on reddit and I got some feedback recommending I a=
lso bring it to this list -- so here goes.</div><div><br></div><div>I wonde=
r if there isn&#39;t perhaps a simpler way of dealing with UTXO growth. Wha=
t if, rather than deal with the issue at the protocol level, we deal with i=
t at the source of the problem -- the wallets. Right now, the typical walle=
t selects only the minimum number of unspent outputs when building a transa=
ction. The goal is to keep the transaction size to a minimum so that the fe=
e stays low. Consequently, lots of unspent outputs just don&#39;t get used,=
 and are left lying around until some point in the future.</div><div><br></=
div><div>What if we started designing wallets to consolidate unspent output=
s? When selecting unspent outputs for a transaction, rather than choosing j=
ust the minimum number from a particular address, why not select them ALL? =
Take all of the UTXOs from a particular address or wallet, send however muc=
h needs to be spent to the payee, and send the rest back to the same addres=
s or a change address as a single output? Through this method, we should wi=
nd up shrinking the UTXO database over time rather than growing it with eac=
h transaction. Obviously, as Bitcoin gains wider adoption, the UTXO databas=
e will grow, simply because there are 7 billion people in the world, and ev=
entually a good percentage of them will have one or more wallets with spend=
able bitcoin. But this idea could limit the growth at least.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>The vast majority of users are running one of a handful of diffe=
rent wallet apps: Core, Electrum; Armory; Mycelium; Breadwallet; Coinbase; =
Circle; Blockchain.info; and maybe a few others. The developers of all thes=
e wallets have a vested interest in the continued usefulness of Bitcoin, an=
d so should not be opposed to changing their UTXO selection algorithms to o=
ne that reduces the UTXO database instead of growing it.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>From the miners perspective, even though these types of transactions=
 would be larger, the fee could stay low. Miners actually benefit from them=
 in that it reduces the amount of storage they need to dedicate to holding =
the UTXO. So miners are incentivized to mine these types of transactions wi=
th a higher priority despite a low fee.</div><div><br></div><div>Relays cou=
ld also get in on the action and enforce this type of behavior by refusing =
to relay or deprioritizing the relay of transactions that don&#39;t use all=
 of the available UTXOs from the addresses used as inputs. Relays are not o=
nly the ones who benefit the most from a reduction of the UTXO database, th=
ey&#39;re also in the best position to promote good behavior.</div><div><di=
v><div><br></div><div>--<div><b>James G. Phillips IV</b>=C2=A0<a href=3D"ht=
tps://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts" style=3D"font-size:x=
-small" target=3D"_blank"><img src=3D"https://ssl.gstatic.com/images/icons/=
gplus-16.png"></a>=C2=A0</div></div><div><font size=3D"1"><i>&quot;Don&#39;=
t bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals.&quot; -=
- David Ogilvy<br></i></font><div><font size=3D"1"><br></font></div></div><=
div><font size=3D"1"><img src=3D"http://findicons.com/files/icons/1156/fugu=
e/16/leaf.png">=C2=A0<em style=3D"font-family:verdana,geneva,sans-serif;lin=
e-height:16px;color:green;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">This message w=
as created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice before printing=
.</em></font></div></div></div>
</div>


!DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!
<p style=3D"margin-top:2.5em;margin-bottom:1em;border-bottom:1px solid #000=
"></p><pre><hr><br>One dashboard for servers and applications across Physic=
al-Virtual-Cloud <br>Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ appl=
ications<br>Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable=
 Insights<br>Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insigh=
t.<br><a href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y" t=
arget=3D"_blank">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y</a=
><br><br>!DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!<br></pre><p style=3D"margin-top:2.5=
em;margin-bottom:1em;border-bottom:1px solid #000"></p><pre><hr><br>Bitcoin=
-development mailing list<br><a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.so=
urceforge.net" target=3D"_blank">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net<=
/a><br><a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-deve=
lopment" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bit=
coin-development</a><br><br><br>!DSPAM:554e4e5450787476022393!<br></pre></b=
lockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</div><=
br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)<br>
<br>
iEYEARECAAYFAlVPXp0ACgkQjwioWRGe9K1+2ACfViY0D2ksVFe29SwhxbtmNSC3<br>
TQAAnRoJLI9wW3DQRPqQ7PorKxelC2S2<br>
=3DEr51<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<br>
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud<br=
>
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications<br>
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights<br=
>
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.<br>
<a href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y" target=
=3D"_blank">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y</a><br>=
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail=
_signature">Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelis=
t<br>BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" targe=
t=3D"_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a></div>
</div>

--001a113cf46aeefdaa0515bb27a1--