📅 Original date posted:2015-12-13
📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Chris Priest <cp368202 at ohiou.edu> wrote:
>> In none of these cases do you lose anything.
>
> Nor do you gain anything. Archive nodes will still need to exist
Not every node is an archive node; that's even the case today.
Lowering the resource requirements to independently enforce the rules
of the system is highly virtuous.
> precisely because paper wallets don't include UTXO data. This is like
> adding the ability to partially seed a movie with bittorrent.
[...]
> Every paper wallet would have to be re-printed with UTXO data
They are not printed now with UTXO data
(txid:vout:scriptpubkey:amount), and unless you start and fully
synchronize (or are running a full node) you already cannot author a
transaction without that data. The private key is already not enough,
and no Bitcoin node will just give you what you need to know.
The only additional information JL2012's scheme would add would be the
hash tree fragments to show membership; and the same places that
currently give you what is required to author a transaction could
provide it for you.
> included. It doesn't even solve the core problem because someone can
> still flood the network with lots of UTXOs, as long as they spend them
> quickly.
The system already inhibits the rate new UTXO can be added; but we're
still left with the perpetually growing history that contains many
lost and otherwise unspendable outputs.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 17:46:14
in reply to nevent1q…xya8
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 17:46:14Event JSON
{
"id": "6dc1ea277d1e6a86acbc0966398962b4c350039edeb007fac9d05c37a64e2af8",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686159974,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3a132d93c9c4c5dfbfb11ddb31dd151bd41288218a2dab2ec24f273a7cf079bf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"560cf131c1f01b398058668878d0490f62834d9d41aa9c198ee4a2684f797638",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3b5311200328974edeaa105b1a8f60d243e653cc63b6bb29f61dc696e04189ed"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-13\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Chris Priest \u003ccp368202 at ohiou.edu\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e In none of these cases do you lose anything.\n\u003e\n\u003e Nor do you gain anything. Archive nodes will still need to exist\n\nNot every node is an archive node; that's even the case today.\nLowering the resource requirements to independently enforce the rules\nof the system is highly virtuous.\n\n\u003e precisely because paper wallets don't include UTXO data. This is like\n\u003e adding the ability to partially seed a movie with bittorrent.\n[...]\n\u003e Every paper wallet would have to be re-printed with UTXO data\n\nThey are not printed now with UTXO data\n(txid:vout:scriptpubkey:amount), and unless you start and fully\nsynchronize (or are running a full node) you already cannot author a\ntransaction without that data. The private key is already not enough,\nand no Bitcoin node will just give you what you need to know.\n\nThe only additional information JL2012's scheme would add would be the\nhash tree fragments to show membership; and the same places that\ncurrently give you what is required to author a transaction could\nprovide it for you.\n\n\u003e included. It doesn't even solve the core problem because someone can\n\u003e still flood the network with lots of UTXOs, as long as they spend them\n\u003e quickly.\n\nThe system already inhibits the rate new UTXO can be added; but we're\nstill left with the perpetually growing history that contains many\nlost and otherwise unspendable outputs.",
"sig": "8ed31a678e6173e96ad92eeae00bc496a19ef037fb94c6277ce2f141ba26c2c261af943e286b7d10c32190641559ede3b549fcfe04aa96c3757593e2ff9d2b67"
}