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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jim@ergophobia.org>) id 1YrAo4-0007C7-27
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 09 May 2015 19:53:04 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YrAo3-0007U4-3D
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 09 May 2015 19:53:04 +0000
Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so64626447wid.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 09 May 2015 12:52:57 -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=P19O2bKIoNGWOzxlr8+CXBR6kHAtExbpszmUsNrd7/I=;
b=D6vAtHQRHlYT6JbPWwz3eItAtUIj1pf6oNh4v5benNldxha1oOCBqJJRrGTxm/iEE8
Ora8JNqTpQYLG37N6uUnZG9irQI6s8t/e4a3CfsosoVMsrEiuQSOHHEuxAT81iIvkRqb
M5OZvC6YgWJcsq24F/6wxhert3A2M3soVvREk6B6+El+Tfhh9Qh7GL1MP3NaZ+I3of9r
K/hvK0acxXxdSeCtk3Jw/gkNS8jost1DEEF6zOLVBorS8RQv15VXCGd7CtugRpNd4J79
Kf511TYHbOzs5383bDVL1WxOFtVJZoFX1YkIjZE4ur977dUbfLulRpHM4g1XwFLpFWTE
lEXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnzgyBWTWVBhG1Rs9BgfV35OYWZ7bAE8LseCPXXnGxFvLsykedaBzat2gvNA/ChVMOqqujI
X-Received: by 10.194.61.133 with SMTP id p5mr7183411wjr.132.1431201177037;
Sat, 09 May 2015 12:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.246.69 with HTTP; Sat, 9 May 2015 12:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
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
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YrAo3-0007U4-3D
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 19:53:04 -0000
--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"><<a=
href=3D"mailto:raystonn@hotmail.com" target=3D"_blank">raystonn@hotmail.co=
m</a>></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'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't think of any reason why miners care how old a=
particular UTXO is when determining what fees to charge. I'm sure ther=
e is one, I just don'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--
|
