On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> have run a node/kept their utxo before they were aware of this change and
> then realise miners have discarded their utxo. Oops?
I believe you have misunderstood jl2012's post. His post does not
cause the outputs to become
Dormant threshold is way too low. There's many news articles about people
forgetting that they used to mine bitcoins and then suddenly remembered.
This will continue to happen for much longer than 8 years as people
rediscover bitcoin when it goes further mainstream. You can't expect them
to have ru
The general concept has merit and the basic outline here seems sound
enough. I have harboured a notion for having "archived UTXO" for some
time, this is essentially it. The retrieval from archive cost is on the
UTXO holder not the entire storage network, which is then only bearing
full 'instant' re
It is a common practice in commercial banks that a dormant account might
be confiscated. Confiscating or deleting dormant UTXOs might be too
controversial, but allowing the UTXOs set growing without any limit
might not be a sustainable option. People lose their private keys.
People do stupid th
.,
,
/.
, /,
,.
/ ,
..
,,, . // ., .
_. ... .. ._.
,_
,
,
,
, , ... _ _.
,.
. ,.,_.
.,, ..
,
,,
._
. .
_
.
,
, ,, /..,,
/ ,
. .
_
.,. _.. ,
,
.. _
..
,.,, _
, _
,
///
. ,
/ . ,.
,
,.,
. ,
, ., ,. ._ , ,,,//
,,
.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Luke Durback wrote:
>>If it's voting for something consensus, you will need something special. If
>> it's not consensus (ie external) thw voting doesn't have to hit the chain at
>> all.
>
> I had in mind voting for something that can't be trusted if done externall
A segwit supporting server would be required to support relaying segwit
transactions, although a non-segwit server could at least inform a wallet
of segwit txns observed, even if it doesn't relay all information necessary
to validate.
Non segwit servers and wallets would continue operations as if
