📅 Original date posted:2012-12-03
📝 Original message:> 1) Wouldn't the need to re-transact your coins to keep them safe from "vultures", result in people frantically sending coins to themselves, and thus expand the block chain, instead of reduce growth?
Not at the rate suggested
> 2) putting those hard limits in passes a value judgement that IMO should not be present in the protocol. <1BTC may be worth a lot some day, or it could go the other way around, with dust spam of 10+ BTC. Either way the limits will have to be changed again, with yet another fork.
Well, retransmitting 1BTC ones every 4 years isn't that bad. So I don't see a need for another fork for this reason.
> 3) The (normal) user does not have a view of his balance consisting of inputs and outputs of various sizes. He just sees his balance as one number. And somehow, inexplicably (except through a very difficult explanation), it's going down... what if he has 10000 BTC in 0.9999999 BTC units? Annnnnd it's gone after 210000 blocks.
Agree to this - and also to the fact that it will be hard to introduce - it would be changing the protocol quite a lot (perhaps too much).
A better set of relay fee rules rewarding a decrease in # UTXOs is probably the (easiest) way forward.
/M
>
Michael Gronager [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nc…gw452
2023-06-07 10:45:07
in reply to nevent1q…3ft6
Author Public Key
npub1nc78dlt7hp3v5dl32qu3m678h2j0ss374glcjnz8df75xcx7ngpq4gw452Published at
2023-06-07 10:45:07Event JSON
{
"id": "c5291de80094fa5932acd739005ed6fb9cb09db6b3ff3cb54921624402f12ee3",
"pubkey": "9e3c76fd7eb862ca37f150391debc7baa4f8423eaa3f894c476a7d4360de9a02",
"created_at": 1686134707,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e38e06cde7ee8f4b601cbd5e5a0ad7773352871f0487670ef1ae95a3f05e5aad",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d692b0a4872500d91488bf84d2b38e2757b3816ceb1fd00181ac500bf16b7b88",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-12-03\n📝 Original message:\u003e 1) Wouldn't the need to re-transact your coins to keep them safe from \"vultures\", result in people frantically sending coins to themselves, and thus expand the block chain, instead of reduce growth?\n\nNot at the rate suggested\n\n\u003e 2) putting those hard limits in passes a value judgement that IMO should not be present in the protocol. \u003c1BTC may be worth a lot some day, or it could go the other way around, with dust spam of 10+ BTC. Either way the limits will have to be changed again, with yet another fork.\n\nWell, retransmitting 1BTC ones every 4 years isn't that bad. So I don't see a need for another fork for this reason.\n\n\u003e 3) The (normal) user does not have a view of his balance consisting of inputs and outputs of various sizes. He just sees his balance as one number. And somehow, inexplicably (except through a very difficult explanation), it's going down... what if he has 10000 BTC in 0.9999999 BTC units? Annnnnd it's gone after 210000 blocks.\n\nAgree to this - and also to the fact that it will be hard to introduce - it would be changing the protocol quite a lot (perhaps too much).\n\nA better set of relay fee rules rewarding a decrease in # UTXOs is probably the (easiest) way forward.\n\n/M\n\u003e",
"sig": "c7d959b2a77598171af82013d8f37c62882c0fa8760aec42ca6f197b4d3ab8d930d7ffb79df700f2887c8c06a3f0d8a1cce5350082e398705c1a2d22b087448e"
}