On 3/10/13, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: > It's also been suggested multiple times to make transaction outputs with > a value less than the transaction fee non-standard, either with a fixed > constant or by some sort of measurement.
As said on the bitcointalk thread, I think this is the wrong approach. This way you effectively disable legitimate use cases for payments that "are worth" less than the fees like smart property/colored coins. While the transactions pay fees, they should not be considered spam regardless of how little the quantities being moved are. Then your only concern are unspent outputs and comparing fees with values doesn't help in any way. Just activate a non-proportional demurrage (well, I won't complain if you just turn bitcoin into freicoin, just think that non-proportional would be more acceptable by most bitcoiners) that incentives old transactions to be moved and destroys unspent transactions with small amounts that don't move to another address periodically. This has been proposed many times before too, and I think it makes a lot more sense. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
