📅 Original date posted:2012-12-03
📝 Original message:> If this were a proposal at the time Bitcoin was created, I would definitely be in favor, but I feel we can't just change such a policy right now - it's not what people signed up for when they started using the system. I also see no way to implement this without a hard fork, which would require planning at least 1-2 years in advance (imho). By that time, the economic landscape of Bitcoin may be vastly different, and either dust spam will have killed it, or we will have found another solution already.
Bitcoin aka the blockchain is defined by the majority of the miners. This is what people have signed up to imo. A scheme that a) is of benefit for us all and b) is also of economical benefit for the miners, will likely be accepted quite fast - especially now when the bounty was just halved... I also fear that there is a lot of BTCs that is effectively un-owned and it could even drive Satoshi to use some of his BTCs ;)
> Personally, I think the best solution is to change the mining policy to prioritize (and perhaps favor for free relay/inclusion) transactions that reduce the number of UTXO's.
Agree - initially (and possibly in parallel) this would be a nice path to follow - it could be done solely by adjusting the relay fee: Transactions that increases the # UTXOs pay extra, those that reduce it pay less (symmetrical around a minimum fee). So in other words we 'tax' increasing the size of the UTXOs.
No matter how it is done - as long as a client is not punished for getting rid of dust, and clients are rewritten to do this automatically we could re-evaluate after a some time - but currently the number of UTXOs is growing rapidly.
/M
>
> --
> Pieter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Michael Gronager [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nc…gw452
2023-06-07 10:44:33
in reply to nevent1q…2lyl
Author Public Key
npub1nc78dlt7hp3v5dl32qu3m678h2j0ss374glcjnz8df75xcx7ngpq4gw452Seen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 10:44:33Event JSON
{
"id": "719670be60d8b2412413631afa68479a03e0068b3138e1033e204fdcf6b4c817",
"pubkey": "9e3c76fd7eb862ca37f150391debc7baa4f8423eaa3f894c476a7d4360de9a02",
"created_at": 1686134673,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e38e06cde7ee8f4b601cbd5e5a0ad7773352871f0487670ef1ae95a3f05e5aad",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"95aa1bddf2949b87fdf165a6a7f196045665f4f5c273e4a89d0c00488da64354",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-12-03\n📝 Original message:\u003e If this were a proposal at the time Bitcoin was created, I would definitely be in favor, but I feel we can't just change such a policy right now - it's not what people signed up for when they started using the system. I also see no way to implement this without a hard fork, which would require planning at least 1-2 years in advance (imho). By that time, the economic landscape of Bitcoin may be vastly different, and either dust spam will have killed it, or we will have found another solution already.\n\nBitcoin aka the blockchain is defined by the majority of the miners. This is what people have signed up to imo. A scheme that a) is of benefit for us all and b) is also of economical benefit for the miners, will likely be accepted quite fast - especially now when the bounty was just halved... I also fear that there is a lot of BTCs that is effectively un-owned and it could even drive Satoshi to use some of his BTCs ;)\n\n\u003e Personally, I think the best solution is to change the mining policy to prioritize (and perhaps favor for free relay/inclusion) transactions that reduce the number of UTXO's.\n\nAgree - initially (and possibly in parallel) this would be a nice path to follow - it could be done solely by adjusting the relay fee: Transactions that increases the # UTXOs pay extra, those that reduce it pay less (symmetrical around a minimum fee). So in other words we 'tax' increasing the size of the UTXOs.\n\nNo matter how it is done - as long as a client is not punished for getting rid of dust, and clients are rewritten to do this automatically we could re-evaluate after a some time - but currently the number of UTXOs is growing rapidly. \n\n/M\n\n\n\n\n\u003e \n\u003e -- \n\u003e Pieter\n\u003e \n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel: \n\u003e BUILD Helping you discover the best ways to construct your parallel projects.\n\u003e http://goparallel.sourceforge.net_______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development",
"sig": "bc8628f2aa074b0ada637d9d4542ebdff5e37894913a7d5df7e09748a70bc91675a150d06ab91ea2fffe26333e3bdb8ad06fdea9c4a05a6c0e36f2d13192f23b"
}