📅 Original date posted:2017-07-21
📝 Original message:2017-07-21 16:28 GMT-03:00 Major Kusanagi via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at 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 bitcoins cannot last forever.
> This proposed solution however does not prevent Bitcoin from lasting
> forever.
>
Unless there is a logical contradiction in this phrasing, the proposed
solution does not improves scalability:
- "Bitcoins lasting forever" implies "unscalable";
- "not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever" implies "Bitcoins lasting
forever";
- Thus: "not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever" implies "unscalable".
In practice, the only Bitcoin lost would be those whose owners forgot about
or has lost the keys, because everyone with a significant amount of
Bitcoins would always shift them around before it loses any luster (I
wouldn't bother to move my Bitcoins every 10 years). I don't know how to
estimate the percentage of UTXO is actually lost/forgotten, but I have the
opinion it isn't worth the hassle.
As a side note, your estimate talks about block size, which is determines
blockchain size, which can be "safely" pruned (if you are not considering
new nodes might want to join the network, in case the full history is
needed to be stored somewhere). But UTXO size, albeit related to the full
blockchain size, is the part that currently can not be safely pruned, so I
don't see the relevance of the analysis.
--
Lucas Clemente Vella
lvella at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170721/5f4564df/attachment.html>;
Lucas Clemente Vella [ARCHIVE] /
npub19k…0235g
2023-06-07 18:04:42
in reply to nevent1q…fpym
Author Public Key
npub19kh93sp86d62nty669ffmttlq6vedf95g2eep5dh5443s64x5rpq60235gPublished at
2023-06-07 18:04:42Event JSON
{
"id": "b385bfede9abcc6b81ad834e25bb6f085513dffb0a5b5534a68ba4e8f1fef65f",
"pubkey": "2dae58c027d374a9ac9ad1529dad7f069996a4b442b390d1b7a56b186aa6a0c2",
"created_at": 1686161082,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6eebccbb0c5de2832306b6de91f04afda40edd9166d6c7cc3ed7f3edb95fbd34",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"53d47b52a27b4a0aec6fe5c84bfbdf38215e0f6ea01d2805f197cdaa9d9f881d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c014d1bfafe3eb36fdc452a033c6a2ababe84f0e6de1f7169e1a17a4a018f498"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-07-21\n📝 Original message:2017-07-21 16:28 GMT-03:00 Major Kusanagi via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e:\n\n\u003e [...] But the fact is that if we want to make bitcoins last forever, we\n\u003e have the accept unbounded UTXO growth, which is unscalable. So the only\n\u003e solution is to limit UTXO growth, meaning bitcoins cannot last forever.\n\u003e This proposed solution however does not prevent Bitcoin from lasting\n\u003e forever.\n\u003e\n\nUnless there is a logical contradiction in this phrasing, the proposed\nsolution does not improves scalability:\n - \"Bitcoins lasting forever\" implies \"unscalable\";\n - \"not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever\" implies \"Bitcoins lasting\nforever\";\n - Thus: \"not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever\" implies \"unscalable\".\n\nIn practice, the only Bitcoin lost would be those whose owners forgot about\nor has lost the keys, because everyone with a significant amount of\nBitcoins would always shift them around before it loses any luster (I\nwouldn't bother to move my Bitcoins every 10 years). I don't know how to\nestimate the percentage of UTXO is actually lost/forgotten, but I have the\nopinion it isn't worth the hassle.\n\nAs a side note, your estimate talks about block size, which is determines\nblockchain size, which can be \"safely\" pruned (if you are not considering\nnew nodes might want to join the network, in case the full history is\nneeded to be stored somewhere). But UTXO size, albeit related to the full\nblockchain size, is the part that currently can not be safely pruned, so I\ndon't see the relevance of the analysis.\n\n-- \nLucas Clemente Vella\nlvella at gmail.com\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170721/5f4564df/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "81894b021feee9fabce9134eda89b7d1e440a710467245e5c934a34fa411da38f5b4f5a511ce87ea384cb9b8eece3cca5ae404e63ac7cde21ed4bbe95bc8e2de"
}