Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

Lock time transactions have been valid for over a year now I believe. In any case we can't scan the block chain for usage patterns in UTXOs because P2SH puts the script in the signature on spend. > On Aug 22, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Thomas Guyot-Sionnest via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > I'm just gettin

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

I'm just getting the proposal out... if we decide to go forward (pretty huge "if" right now) whenever it kicks in after 15, 50 or 100 years should be decided as early as possible. Are CheckLockTimeVerify transactions accepted yet? I thought most special transactions were only accepted on Testnet..

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

On 22/08/17 06:17 PM, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Also how is this not a tax on coin holders? By forcing people to > move coins around you would be chipping away at their wealth in the > form of extorted TX fees. > As if the fee for one tx per decade (or more if we'd like) matter

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

gt; > Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:24:05 -0400 > From: Thomas Guyot-Sionnest > To: Erik Aronesty , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > , Chris Riley > > Cc: Matthew Beton > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal > Message-ID: <

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

Also how is this not a tax on coin holders? By forcing people to move coins around you would be chipping away at their wealth in the form of extorted TX fees. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfounda

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

A fun exercise to be sure, but perhaps off topic for this list? > On Aug 22, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > The initial message I replied to stated: > > Yes, 3 years is silly. But coin expiration and quantum resistance is > something I've been thinking about f

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

> The initial message I replied to stated: Yes, 3 years is silly. But coin expiration and quantum resistance is something I've been thinking about for a while, so I tried to steer the conversation away from stealing old money for no reason ;). Plus I like the idea of making Bitcoin "2000 year p

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

The initial message I replied to stated in part, "Okay so I quite like this idea. If we start removing at height 63 or 84 (gives us 4-8 years to develop this solution), it stays nice and neat with the halving interval" That is less than 3 years or less than 7 years away. Much sooner t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

Very true, if Moore's law is still functional in 200 years, computers will be 2^100 times faster (possibly more if quantum computing becomes commonplace), and so old wallets may be easily cracked. We will need a way to force people to use newer, higher security wallets, and turning coins to mining

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

In any case when Hal Finney do not wake up from his 200years cryo-preservation (because unfortunately for him 200 years earlier they did not know how to preserve a body well enough to resurrect it) he would find that advance in computer technology made it trivial for anyone to steal his coins using

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

I agree, it is only a good idea in the event of a quantum computing threat to the security of Bitcoin. On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Chris Riley via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion. The idea that we > can cha

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

Ok, I see your point. I was just thinking about the number of bitcoins tied up in wallets in which people lost the keys, but I suppose this isn't so much of a problem if it's well known that the bitcoins are all tied up. It would be impossible to distinguish between bitcoins people have lost access

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion. The idea that we can change the rules and steal coins at a later date because they are "stale" or someone is "hoarding" is antithetical to one of the points of bitcoin in that you can no longer control your own money ("be your own bank") beca

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

Okay so I quite like this idea. If we start removing at height 63 or 84 (gives us 4-8 years to develop this solution), it stays nice and neat with the halving interval. We can look at this like so: B - the current block number P - how many blocks behind current the coin burning block is. (

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

1. If it only affects "old dust" UTXO's where the # of coins in the UTXO aren't sufficient to pay some lower quantile of transaction fees, then there can be little argument of theft or loss. 2. There's another use-case for demurrage as well. Computation power may grow rapidly if quantum computing

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

A more forgiving option would be to have coins past a certain age evaporate into mining rewards at some rate, rather than all at once. People might find this approach easier to stomach as it avoids the "I waited 1 block to many and all of my coins vanished" scenario. Another approach would to dema

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

On 21/07/17 03:59 PM, Lucas Clemente Vella via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 2017-07-21 16:28 GMT-03:00 Major Kusanagi via bitcoin-dev > >: > > [...] But the fact is that if we want to make bitcoins last forever, > we have the accept unbounded UTXO gro

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Lucas Clemente Vella wrote: > 2017-07-21 16:28 GMT-03:00 Major Kusanagi via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > >> [...] But the fact is that if we want to make bitcoins last forever, we >> have the accept unbounded UTXO growth, which is uns

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Jameson Lopp wrote: > Sounds like demurrage to me, which has been implemented in other > cryptocurrencies such as Freicoin - http://freico.in/ > I don’t think it’s like demurrage in Freicoin at all. The purpose of the proposal is to help Bitcoin scale, which is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

If we have a problem with a UTXO set that is too large, seems like maybe the fair way to approach it is to enforce a limit on the growth of the UTXO set. Miners would eventually be forced to generate blocks that are UTXO neutral and would factor that into their algorithm for prioritizing transacti

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

2017-07-21 16:28 GMT-03:00 Major Kusanagi via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > [...] But the fact is that if we want to make bitcoins last forever, we > have the accept unbounded UTXO growth, which is unscalable. So the only > solution is to limit UTXO growth, meaning bitcoi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

Hi Major, I think that you'll enjoy Peter Todd's blogpost on TXO commitments[1]. It has a better scalability improvement with fewer negative consequence. Best, Jeremy [1] https://petertodd.org/2016/delayed-txo-commitments -- @JeremyRubin

Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

Sounds like demurrage to me, which has been implemented in other cryptocurrencies such as Freicoin - http://freico.in/ While it's an interesting to apply this line of thinking from a scaling perspective, I suspect most would find it untenable from a monetary policy perspective. You have touched o

[bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal

Hi all, I have a scaling solution idea that I would be interested in getting some feedback on. I’m new to the mailing list and have not been in the Bitcoin space as long as some have been, so I don’t know if anyone has thought of this idea. Arguably the biggest scaling problem for Bitcoin is the