MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <COL402-EAS295F2E93FABEABF789204D5CDDD0@phx.gbl>
References: <COL402-EAS295F2E93FABEABF789204D5CDDD0@phx.gbl>
From: Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia.org>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 14:52:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CANe1mWzza00poapfPmsgRUiqt5qkamx_V6xtTKZCvTGd-SgVcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacb598c282d60515ab7d16
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
Precedence: list

--047d7bacb598c282d60515ab7d16
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:

> How about this as a happy medium default policy: Rather than select UTXOs
>> based solely on age and limiting the size of the transaction, we select as
>> many UTXOs as possible from as few addresses as possible, prioritizing
>> which addresses to use based on the number of UTXOs it contains (more being
>> preferable) and how old those UTXOs are (in order to reduce the fee)?
>
> If selecting older UTXOs gives higher priority for a lesser (or at least
> not greater) fee, that is an incentive for a rational user to use the older
> UTXOs.  Such policy needs to be defended or removed.  It doesn't support
> privacy or a reduction in UTXOs.
>
Before starting this thread, I had completely forgotten that age was even a
factor in determining which UTXOs to use. Frankly, I can't think of any
reason why miners care how old a particular UTXO is when determining what
fees to charge. I'm sure there is one, I just don't know what it is. I just
tossed it in there as homage to Andreas who pointed out to me that it was
still part of the selection criteria.

--047d7bacb598c282d60515ab7d16
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div><div class=3D"gmail_signat=
ure"><div>On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Raystonn <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:raystonn@hotmail.com" target=3D"_blank">raystonn@hotmail.co=
m</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-lef=
t-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px=
 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left=
-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style=3D"color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:=
12.8000001907349px">How about this as a happy medium default policy: Rather=
 than select UTXOs based solely on age and limiting the size of the transac=
tion, we select as many UTXOs as possible from as few addresses as possible=
, prioritizing which addresses to use based on the number of UTXOs it conta=
ins (more being preferable) and how old those UTXOs are (in order to reduce=
 the fee)?=C2=A0</span></blockquote><p dir=3D"ltr">If selecting older UTXOs=
 gives higher priority for a lesser (or at least not greater) fee, that is =
an incentive for a rational user to use the older UTXOs.=C2=A0 Such policy =
needs to be defended or removed.=C2=A0 It doesn&#39;t support privacy or a =
reduction in UTXOs.</p></blockquote><div>Before starting this thread, I had=
 completely forgotten that age was even a factor in determining which UTXOs=
 to use. Frankly, I can&#39;t think of any reason why miners care how old a=
 particular UTXO is when determining what fees to charge. I&#39;m sure ther=
e is one, I just don&#39;t know what it is. I just tossed it in there as ho=
mage to Andreas who pointed out to me that it was still part of the selecti=
on criteria.</div></div></div></div>

--047d7bacb598c282d60515ab7d16--