📅 Original date posted:2017-08-22
📝 Original message: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) matters, plus
it could be very low priority. In fact we could re-allow free
transactions based on old priority rules (oldest outputs gets higher
priority... I would suggest considering reduction in utxo size as well
but that's another topic).
Actually, to ensure miners allow these transaction one rule could be
that the block must contain free transactions on old utxo's ("old" TBD)
to reclaim from the scavenged pool... One side effect is that mining
empty blocks before previous block TX can be validated would reduce the
reward.
I'd love to find clever approach where we could somehow make a
verifiable block check that old tx refresh are included... I haven't put
much thoughts into it yet but if there was a way a two-step transaction
where 1. a fee is paid to register an UTXO refresh (miners would be
encouraged to accept it and increase their immediate revenue), and 2.
the fee must be returned from the pool on a later block. The idea is to
allow free scavenging of own addresses while discouraging miners from
refusing free transactions so they could eventually reclaim the coins. I
can't think of a way that limits the burden on consensus rules...
--
Thomas
Thomas Guyot-Sionnest [ARCHIVE] /
npub136…dtjc5
2023-06-07 18:04:57
in reply to nevent1q…tyah
Author Public Key
npub136w76t4elj3fpxvzq0tpkm2smaav9aku7y7ccjzvhhhyqhuk8hmsgdtjc5Published at
2023-06-07 18:04:57Event JSON
{
"id": "dfe6021b27cb52f6616e98afd1cf30a6f26a103077302b9f85fdda6391a65b77",
"pubkey": "8e9ded2eb9fca290998203d61b6d50df7ac2f6dcf13d8c484cbdee405f963df7",
"created_at": 1686161097,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0c6b4b39952a477652831cf44f1b98052b758ac89592ff172262f8fe76fd14d7",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b93d4d8c495335f5b5f01f060c5297e72d491e30a5e26bfc9e0251202ddc57d0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"d095b8308db6dba342441a113eb30e1fc39625c0f54d4eb0c3b214d083d846a5"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-08-22\n📝 Original message:On 22/08/17 06:17 PM, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Also.... how is this not a tax on coin holders? By forcing people to\n\u003e move coins around you would be chipping away at their wealth in the\n\u003e form of extorted TX fees. \n\u003e \n\nAs if the fee for one tx per decade (or more if we'd like) matters, plus\nit could be very low priority. In fact we could re-allow free\ntransactions based on old priority rules (oldest outputs gets higher\npriority... I would suggest considering reduction in utxo size as well\nbut that's another topic).\n\nActually, to ensure miners allow these transaction one rule could be\nthat the block must contain free transactions on old utxo's (\"old\" TBD)\nto reclaim from the scavenged pool... One side effect is that mining\nempty blocks before previous block TX can be validated would reduce the\nreward.\n\nI'd love to find clever approach where we could somehow make a\nverifiable block check that old tx refresh are included... I haven't put\nmuch thoughts into it yet but if there was a way a two-step transaction\nwhere 1. a fee is paid to register an UTXO refresh (miners would be\nencouraged to accept it and increase their immediate revenue), and 2.\nthe fee must be returned from the pool on a later block. The idea is to\nallow free scavenging of own addresses while discouraging miners from\nrefusing free transactions so they could eventually reclaim the coins. I\ncan't think of a way that limits the burden on consensus rules...\n\n-- \nThomas",
"sig": "46f940c32f17ccced38ff06930c92a8916f1b82a1c3421e7039c4791e75cb92d7cf483561e16f66e5830706054cc11b940340068b92263601717db5b053c4ba0"
}