path: root/1a/7307f81c936dead13a7d7fad6743a79c2f4ca1

Return-Path: <shymaa.arafat@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C5FDC000B;
 Sun, 13 Feb 2022 05:19:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8A140361;
 Sun, 13 Feb 2022 05:19:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
 SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id NSubfVK4ZC0X; Sun, 13 Feb 2022 05:19:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-ej1-x62f.google.com (mail-ej1-x62f.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66F184035F;
 Sun, 13 Feb 2022 05:19:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id h8so4378534ejy.4;
 Sat, 12 Feb 2022 21:19:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=8oNppmSlPD/2GJYjv4ApjIV9brgcu8WZsoIir9zIpfc=;
 b=kGa881G2Er30Erc2S4HdHpzpJnSrZrsdY6umAXe6Rtp0lSQjdqK8l4+lqJV4NHSIl1
 NEzw6SLWBONafCr1J4Fq832SJP4DKL7hxw4+wP6guLb1lq4VpbvzOfBhlC8ZoScnNSI5
 MHn3moyQQ8b6EbF/HRXWg95V+65B8ZelpyWxvST+P8myE3okrKDD5CA3cFl+udv0tMFQ
 FArVFKBzAuusWO3avO0mv6/tcb0X5sXzBjh3pw96oUHWEQvurkg8RidTjYxUa6MZon4G
 sjKd+NU9Mvc+8O5QjydGHbfaTsP/GM/hs6u9LlUmf5ICN0qJPDiwAEMXxlmnUHxRL3D8
 S0+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to;
 bh=8oNppmSlPD/2GJYjv4ApjIV9brgcu8WZsoIir9zIpfc=;
 b=Y134AmTVUJHmls5fXGFKAeU43+CSj8Jz4yc/HmqybU6ksNNNP2soJBLDYPRx3yEDPI
 jdlMxGLwRWVgGLgSrR+Z0GYb7w1F3LQ1ZdzBON+B2KiwmxNj+wm3ngOjP86HdFIBIOxa
 yISrd2N4VWAriWr6YNNchClq/iZ1KaSowh+7HQcRvd4BEMzrujCemQZPvCXBF6vAdKsa
 3GMvh4pSNEFamFSDRky+dCJv9XLgKpOB6qaNp9wt1hnVWJ5gR6EE1ea3EzhX/GbhFje+
 q0PDxMnS+L2XSlm0/eNWPBuF/80rH9NGcnAk5kYEizDyDaugP65CKiv+sTdYbLNCcrkL
 Xa6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5302jR41iMtSEok3VL6wrepp4PzOu3iCsFrXDWEkBG2E4wz/iCZ7
 WD4fbPCNqJDTnONx5S5pDn4mVqMYcJJkB60F+o1EoeG1
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz3dta8jGcynoI4vVBXssEeLPi6ft6vicwu9MT8mhFjZkt93oqEc9l9J59xFAXxIk13oFmPbAyxblSFz8mN0Ac=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:60d5:: with SMTP id
 f21mr6937217ejk.482.1644729556050; 
 Sat, 12 Feb 2022 21:19:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM98U8kJVMJOQ++cyP3WXFRSHUZw0ySp3dVuZ=BzoRj2qE4Dug@mail.gmail.com>
 <c7bdbBVd0KmLFPUeYk0QUdni7tbDwJSj4HGLlEOkdPzIYzOyaX147HWJPKE-isTL267nQeJds8-rsKNyzRrBhucsZvwZcg5dZjQxDnbwxAA=@wuille.net>
 <382073c28af1ec54827093003cbec2cc@willtech.com.au>
 <CAM98U8mJvYcBur01Z32TS4RYW+jMDCVQAUtrg5KXF+50d0zirA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM98U8mJvYcBur01Z32TS4RYW+jMDCVQAUtrg5KXF+50d0zirA@mail.gmail.com>
From: shymaa arafat <shymaa.arafat@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM98U8=Skhz8ETxHd+aBZssHDcj3qNikDa_JYuR5dcSMUJP32g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, 
 lightning-dev <lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f0a4dd05d7df7073"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 13 Feb 2022 08:44:10 +0000
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
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2022 05:19:22 -0000

--000000000000f0a4dd05d7df7073
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I just want to add an alarming info to this thread...

*There are at least 5.7m UTXOs=E2=89=A41000 Sat (~7%), *
*8.04 m =E2=89=A41$ (10%), *
*13.5m =E2=89=A4 0.0001BTC (17%)*

It seems that bitInfoCharts took my enquiry seriously and added a main link
for dust analysis:
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-dustiest-bitcoin-addresses.html
Here, you can see just *the first address contains more than 1.7m dust
UTXOs*
(ins-outs =3D1,712,706 with a few real UTXOs holding the bulk of 415 BTC)
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1HckjUpRGcrrRAtFaaCAUaGjsPx9oYmLa=
Z

=C2=BB=C2=BB=C2=BB=C2=BB=C2=BB
 That's alarming isn't it?, is it due to the lightning networks protocol or
could be some other weird activity going on?
.
The following address are similar but less severe
~394k UTXOs, 170k, 92k, 10*20k, 4or5 *14k,...etc
add at least 2.7m UTXOs coming from addresses with a higher balance to the
interval numbers here (calculated & mentioned in my previous email)
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html


I think it seems bitInfoCharts will probably make their own report about it
soon

Regards
Shymaa M. Arafat

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022, 07:19 shymaa arafat <shymaa.arafat@gmail.com> wrote:

> If 1 Sat reached 100$, you may adjust the delete( or call it omitting or
> trimming) threshold, since you will need to acquire decimal places inside
> the Sat variable too ( people may have TXs less than 100$)
>
> -Talking with today's numbers,
> https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
>
> it is hard to imagine that someone's all holdings in Bitcoin is just =E2=
=89=A41000
> Sat (3.15 m address) or even =E2=89=A410,000 Sat (4.1$, with currently 7.=
6m
> addresses in addition to the 3.15m)
> So we'll just incentivise those people to find a low fee time in say a 6
> month interval and collect those UTXOs into one of at least 5$
> (10.86m=E2=89=A44.1$) or 1$ (5.248m=E2=89=A41$) your decision.
>
> -During 4 days after showing the smaller intervals, those =E2=89=A41000Sa=
t
> increase by ~2K everyday with total holding increased by 0.01BTC. Address=
es
> in millions:
> 3.148, 3.1509, 3.152895, 3.154398
> Total BTC:
> 14.91,14.92,14.93,14.94
>
> -The number of =E2=89=A410,000 Sat increases by 4-8 k per day.
> Addresses in millions:
> 7.627477, 7.631436, 7.639287, 7.644925
> Total BTC
> 333.5, 333.63, 333.89, 334.1
>
> -remember that no. of addresses is a lowerbound on no. of UTXOs; ie., the
> real numbers could be even more.
> .
> + There's also non-standard & burned , yes they're about 0.6m UTXOs, but
> they're misleading on the status of the value they hold.
> .
> At the end, I'm just suggesting...
> .
> Regards,
> Shymaa
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022, 00:16 <damian@willtech.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Good Morning,
>>
>> I wish to point out that because fees are variable there is no reason
>> fees could not be less than 1 sat in future if fees climb. You may
>> consider this optimistic but I recall in the first days of Bitcoin when
>> fees were voluntary. It is not unreasonable provided the fungibility
>> (money-like-quality) of Bitcoin is maintained for 1 sat to be worth over
>> $100.00 in the future.
>>
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire
>>
>> Regards,
>> The Australian
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>>
>> et al.
>>
>>
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au
>> www.go-overt.com
>> duigco.org DUIGCO API
>> and other projects
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
>> email if misdelivered.
>> --------------
>> On 2022-02-06 09:39, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> >> 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 47=
3
>> >> Sat per address.
>> >
>> >> -Therefore, a simple solution would be to follow the difficulty
>> >> adjustment idea and just delete all those
>> >
>> > That would be a soft-fork, and arguably could be considered theft.
>> > While commonly (but non universally) implemented standardness rules
>> > may prevent spending them currently, there is no requirement that such
>> > a rule remain in place. Depending on how feerate economics work out in
>> > the future, such outputs may not even remain uneconomical to spend.
>> > Therefore, dropping them entirely from the UTXO set is potentially
>> > destroying potentially useful funds people own.
>> >
>> >> or at least remove them to secondary storage
>> >
>> > Commonly adopted Bitcoin full nodes already have two levels of storage
>> > effectively (disk and in-RAM cache). It may be useful to investigate
>> > using amount as a heuristic about what to keep and how long. IIRC, not
>> > even every full node implementation even uses a UTXO model.
>> >
>> >> for Archiving with extra cost to get them back, along with
>> >> non-standard UTXOs and Burned ones (at least for publicly known,
>> >> published, burn addresses).
>> >
>> > Do you mean this as a standardness rule, or a consensus rule?
>> >
>> > * As a standardness rule it's feasible, but it makes policy (further)
>> > deviate from economically rational behavior. There is no reason for
>> > miners to require a higher price for spending such outputs.
>> > * As a consensus rule, I expect something like this to be very
>> > controversial. There are currently no rules that demand any minimal
>> > fee for anything, and given uncertainly over how fee levels could
>> > evolve in the future, it's unclear what those rules, if any, should
>> > be.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > --
>> > Pieter
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>

--000000000000f0a4dd05d7df7073
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">I just want to add an alarming info to this thread...<div=
 dir=3D"auto"><br><div dir=3D"auto"><b><font color=3D"#f44336">There are at=
 least 5.7m UTXOs=E2=89=A41000 Sat (~7%),=C2=A0</font></b></div><div dir=3D=
"auto"><b><font color=3D"#f44336">8.04 m =E2=89=A41$ (10%),=C2=A0</font></b=
></div><div dir=3D"auto"><b><font color=3D"#f44336">13.5m =E2=89=A4 0.0001B=
TC (17%)</font></b></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br><div dir=3D"auto">It seems t=
hat bitInfoCharts took my enquiry seriously and added a main link for dust =
analysis:<br><div dir=3D"auto"><a href=3D"https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100=
-dustiest-bitcoin-addresses.html" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">http=
s://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-dustiest-bitcoin-addresses.html</a></div><div=
 dir=3D"auto">Here, you can see just <u><b>the first address contains more =
than</b> <b>1.7m dust UTXOs</b></u></div><div dir=3D"auto">(ins-outs =3D1,7=
12,706 with a few real UTXOs holding the bulk of 415 BTC)=C2=A0</div><div d=
ir=3D"auto"><a href=3D"https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1HckjUpRGc=
rrRAtFaaCAUaGjsPx9oYmLaZ" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">https://biti=
nfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1HckjUpRGcrrRAtFaaCAUaGjsPx9oYmLaZ</a></div><=
div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">=C2=BB=C2=BB=C2=BB=C2=BB=C2=BB=
</div><div dir=3D"auto">=C2=A0That&#39;s alarming isn&#39;t it?, is it due =
to the lightning networks protocol or could be some other weird activity go=
ing on?</div><div dir=3D"auto">.</div><div dir=3D"auto">The following addre=
ss are similar but less severe</div><div dir=3D"auto">~394k UTXOs, 170k, 92=
k, 10*20k, 4or5 *14k,...etc</div><div dir=3D"auto">add at least 2.7m UTXOs =
coming from addresses with a higher balance to the interval numbers here (c=
alculated &amp; mentioned in my previous email)</div><div dir=3D"auto"><a h=
ref=3D"https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html" ta=
rget=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-riches=
t-bitcoin-addresses.html</a><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I think it seems bitInfoCharts will p=
robably make their own report about it soon</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></di=
v><div dir=3D"auto">Regards</div><div dir=3D"auto">Shymaa M. Arafat</div></=
div></div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=
=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 9, 2022, 07:19 shymaa arafat &lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:shymaa.arafat@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">shymaa.ar=
afat@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
dir=3D"auto">If 1 Sat reached 100$, you may adjust the delete( or call it o=
mitting or trimming) threshold, since you will need to acquire decimal plac=
es inside the Sat variable too ( people may have TXs less than 100$)<div di=
r=3D"auto"><br><div dir=3D"auto">-Talking with today&#39;s numbers,=C2=A0</=
div><div dir=3D"auto"><a href=3D"https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-=
bitcoin-addresses.html" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">htt=
ps://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html</a></div><div=
 dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">it is hard to imagine that someon=
e&#39;s all holdings in Bitcoin is just =E2=89=A41000 Sat (3.15 m address) =
or even =E2=89=A410,000 Sat (4.1$, with currently 7.6m addresses in additio=
n to the 3.15m)</div><div dir=3D"auto">So we&#39;ll just incentivise those =
people to find a low fee time in say a 6 month interval and collect those U=
TXOs into one of at least 5$ (10.86m=E2=89=A44.1$) or 1$ (5.248m=E2=89=A41$=
) your decision.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">-During=
 4 days after showing the smaller intervals, those =E2=89=A41000Sat increas=
e by ~2K everyday with total holding increased by 0.01BTC. Addresses in mil=
lions:</div><div dir=3D"auto">3.148, 3.1509, 3.152895, 3.154398</div><div d=
ir=3D"auto">Total BTC:=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">14.91,14.92,14.93,14.94=
</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">-The number of =E2=89=
=A410,000 Sat increases by 4-8 k per day.</div><div dir=3D"auto">Addresses =
in millions:</div><div dir=3D"auto">7.627477, 7.631436, 7.639287, 7.644925<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto">Total BTC</div><div dir=3D"auto">333.5, 333.63, 333.=
89, 334.1</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">-remember that=
 no. of addresses is a lowerbound on no. of UTXOs; ie., the real numbers co=
uld be even more.</div><div dir=3D"auto">.</div><div dir=3D"auto">+ There&#=
39;s also non-standard &amp; burned , yes they&#39;re about 0.6m UTXOs, but=
 they&#39;re misleading on the status of the value they hold.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto">.</div><div dir=3D"auto">At the end, I&#39;m just suggesting...</=
div><div dir=3D"auto">.</div><div dir=3D"auto">Regards,</div><div dir=3D"au=
to">Shymaa</div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
 class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 9, 2022, 00:16  &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dam=
ian@willtech.com.au" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_bl=
ank">damian@willtech.com.au</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex">Good Morning,<br>
<br>
I wish to point out that because fees are variable there is no reason <br>
fees could not be less than 1 sat in future if fees climb. You may <br>
consider this optimistic but I recall in the first days of Bitcoin when <br=
>
fees were voluntary. It is not unreasonable provided the fungibility <br>
(money-like-quality) of Bitcoin is maintained for 1 sat to be worth over <b=
r>
$100.00 in the future.<br>
<br>
KING JAMES HRMH<br>
Great British Empire<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
The Australian<br>
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (&amp; HMRH)<br>
of Hougun Manor &amp; Glencoe &amp; British Empire<br>
MR. Damian A. James Williamson<br>
Wills<br>
<br>
et al.<br>
<br>
<br>
Willtech<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.willtech.com.au" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer norefer=
rer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">www.willtech.com.au</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.go-overt.com" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer=
 noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">www.go-overt.com</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://duigco.org" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noref=
errer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">duigco.org</a> DUIGCO API<br>
and other projects<br>
<br>
<br>
m. 0487135719<br>
f. +61261470192<br>
<br>
<br>
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this <br>
email if misdelivered.<br>
--------------<br>
On 2022-02-06 09:39, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; Dear Bitcoin Developers,<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; -When I contacted bitInfoCharts to divide the first interval of <b=
r>
&gt;&gt; addresses, they kindly did divided to 3 intervals. From here:<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addre=
sses.html" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresse=
s.html</a><br>
&gt;&gt; -You can see that there are more than 3.1m addresses holding =E2=
=89=A4 <br>
&gt;&gt; 0.000001 BTC (1000 Sat) with total value of 14.9BTC; an average of=
 473 <br>
&gt;&gt; Sat per address.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; -Therefore, a simple solution would be to follow the difficulty <b=
r>
&gt;&gt; adjustment idea and just delete all those<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; That would be a soft-fork, and arguably could be considered theft.<br>
&gt; While commonly (but non universally) implemented standardness rules<br=
>
&gt; may prevent spending them currently, there is no requirement that such=
<br>
&gt; a rule remain in place. Depending on how feerate economics work out in=
<br>
&gt; the future, such outputs may not even remain uneconomical to spend.<br=
>
&gt; Therefore, dropping them entirely from the UTXO set is potentially<br>
&gt; destroying potentially useful funds people own.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; or at least remove them to secondary storage<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Commonly adopted Bitcoin full nodes already have two levels of storage=
<br>
&gt; effectively (disk and in-RAM cache). It may be useful to investigate<b=
r>
&gt; using amount as a heuristic about what to keep and how long. IIRC, not=
<br>
&gt; even every full node implementation even uses a UTXO model.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; for Archiving with extra cost to get them back, along with <br>
&gt;&gt; non-standard UTXOs and Burned ones (at least for publicly known, <=
br>
&gt;&gt; published, burn addresses).<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Do you mean this as a standardness rule, or a consensus rule?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; * As a standardness rule it&#39;s feasible, but it makes policy (furth=
er)<br>
&gt; deviate from economically rational behavior. There is no reason for<br=
>
&gt; miners to require a higher price for spending such outputs.<br>
&gt; * As a consensus rule, I expect something like this to be very<br>
&gt; controversial. There are currently no rules that demand any minimal<br=
>
&gt; fee for anything, and given uncertainly over how fee levels could<br>
&gt; evolve in the future, it&#39;s unclear what those rules, if any, shoul=
d<br>
&gt; be.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Cheers,<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; --<br>
&gt; Pieter<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" rel=3D"norefe=
rrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=
=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000f0a4dd05d7df7073--