📅 Original date posted:2015-05-09
📝 Original message:On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Raystonn <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
> How about this as a happy medium default policy: Rather than select UTXOs
>> based solely on age and limiting the size of the transaction, we select as
>> many UTXOs as possible from as few addresses as possible, prioritizing
>> which addresses to use based on the number of UTXOs it contains (more being
>> preferable) and how old those UTXOs are (in order to reduce the fee)?
>
> If selecting older UTXOs gives higher priority for a lesser (or at least
> not greater) fee, that is an incentive for a rational user to use the older
> UTXOs. Such policy needs to be defended or removed. It doesn't support
> privacy or a reduction in UTXOs.
>
Before starting this thread, I had completely forgotten that age was even a
factor in determining which UTXOs to use. Frankly, I can't think of any
reason why miners care how old a particular UTXO is when determining what
fees to charge. I'm sure there is one, I just don't know what it is. I just
tossed it in there as homage to Andreas who pointed out to me that it was
still part of the selection criteria.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150509/45a26e39/attachment.html>;
Jim Phillips [ARCHIVE] /
npub13d…hzq3z
2023-06-07 15:34:29
in reply to nevent1q…kda5
Author Public Key
npub13djtar0ukxtnpan5lkcpd8mhyvt6v20cm5acmyjaxs4qyuamkdas9hzq3zPublished at
2023-06-07 15:34:29Event JSON
{
"id": "06918c9f46b6c3d9045c50867eed2ae9b110eeeef4fd814847c5e5b0d2cf006a",
"pubkey": "8b64be8dfcb19730f674fdb0169f772317a629f8dd3b8d925d342a0273bbb37b",
"created_at": 1686152069,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e436370a47825fa52c60553290bd211115ae129df3a23920b2899f508d96bf5e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"11eb820237aa912fcac0572d8330ba4bdd598e97d2273b9a9dbb089f81181021",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fbac73d2413d23d5b6e60bc431152069981e56a94cd5d626c9e88b6c0a18cbd5"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-09\n📝 Original message:On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Raystonn \u003craystonn at hotmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e How about this as a happy medium default policy: Rather than select UTXOs\n\u003e\u003e based solely on age and limiting the size of the transaction, we select as\n\u003e\u003e many UTXOs as possible from as few addresses as possible, prioritizing\n\u003e\u003e which addresses to use based on the number of UTXOs it contains (more being\n\u003e\u003e preferable) and how old those UTXOs are (in order to reduce the fee)?\n\u003e\n\u003e If selecting older UTXOs gives higher priority for a lesser (or at least\n\u003e not greater) fee, that is an incentive for a rational user to use the older\n\u003e UTXOs. Such policy needs to be defended or removed. It doesn't support\n\u003e privacy or a reduction in UTXOs.\n\u003e\nBefore starting this thread, I had completely forgotten that age was even a\nfactor in determining which UTXOs to use. Frankly, I can't think of any\nreason why miners care how old a particular UTXO is when determining what\nfees to charge. I'm sure there is one, I just don't know what it is. I just\ntossed it in there as homage to Andreas who pointed out to me that it was\nstill part of the selection criteria.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150509/45a26e39/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "19ac0cbfee66d382bbf46c87ff6330a63a62fd86748890fe037d95b153c3079957d1cb030306179882326422313adaf00f8e00a82e2fa654c31f45fe035db253"
}