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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1UF604-0000Ae-DF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:55:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UF601-0008A6-5v
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:55:00 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id un3so3512674obb.38
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.171.230 with SMTP id ax6mr9211626oec.25.1363020891803;
Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.86.169 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABOyFfqh_VixG7SQMaQUkxU40MGY1f9JO3=OqwitHa1YoT4chQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130310043155.GA20020@savin>
<CABOyFfp9Kd+y=SofWfq6TiR4+xeOhFL7VVHWjtrRn83HMsmPBA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1rt+7BQHz1S=NVtL_YV7kfCapQ+3MEf+xyXT7pZOfq7w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABOyFfrO9Xpc=Pdh_6AM1yoHRCeuHxzqL02F-ALkimmsGbheiA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABOyFfqh_VixG7SQMaQUkxU40MGY1f9JO3=OqwitHa1YoT4chQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:54:51 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: V-od6531WS3-mNWtSRHu2EW_Nso
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0gsrd2W3ODfQRSc2k5V7GotJ0vzEAxcAjnaMtDHZ9_JA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimonmv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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
X-Headers-End: 1UF601-0008A6-5v
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blocking uneconomical UTXO creation
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: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:55:00 -0000
Why does demurrage even still come up? The base rules of Bitcoin will
not be changing in such a fundamental way.
With regards to trying to minimize the size of the UTXO set, this
again feels like a solution in search of a problem. Even with SD
abusing micropayments as messages, it's only a few hundred megabytes
today. That fits in RAM, let alone disk. If one day people do get
concerned about the working set size, miners can independently set
their own policies for what they confirm, for instance maybe they just
bump the priority of any transaction that has fewer outputs than
inputs. An IsStandard() rule now that tries to ban micropayments will
just risk hurting interesting applications for no real benefit. It's
like trying to anticipate and fix problems we might face in 2020.
There are lots of less invasive changes for improving scalability,
like making transaction validation multi-threaded in every case,
transmitting merkle blocks instead of full blocks, moving blocking
disk IO off the main loop so nodes don't go unresponsive when somebody
downloads the chain from them, and finishing the payment protocol work
so there's less incentive to replicate the SD "transactions as
messages" design.
|
