> 1) Wouldn't the need to re-transact your coins to keep them safe from > "vultures", result in people frantically sending coins to themselves, and > thus expand the block chain, instead of reduce growth?
Not at the rate suggested > 2) putting those hard limits in passes a value judgement that IMO should not > be present in the protocol. <1BTC may be worth a lot some day, or it could go > the other way around, with dust spam of 10+ BTC. Either way the limits will > have to be changed again, with yet another fork. Well, retransmitting 1BTC ones every 4 years isn't that bad. So I don't see a need for another fork for this reason. > 3) The (normal) user does not have a view of his balance consisting of inputs > and outputs of various sizes. He just sees his balance as one number. And > somehow, inexplicably (except through a very difficult explanation), it's > going down... what if he has 10000 BTC in 0.9999999 BTC units? Annnnnd it's > gone after 210000 blocks. Agree to this - and also to the fact that it will be hard to introduce - it would be changing the protocol quite a lot (perhaps too much). A better set of relay fee rules rewarding a decrease in # UTXOs is probably the (easiest) way forward. /M > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel: BUILD Helping you discover the best ways to construct your parallel projects. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
