{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-12-13\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e have run a node/kept their utxo before they were aware of this change and\n\u003e then realise miners have discarded their utxo. Oops?\n\nI believe you have misunderstood jl2012's post.  His post does not\ncause the outputs to become discarded. They are still spendable,\nbut the transactions must carry a membership proof to spend them.\nThey don't have to have stored the data themselves, but they must\nget it from somewhere-- including archive nodes that serve this\npurpose rather than having every full node carry all that data forever.\n\nPlease be conservative with the send button. The list loses its\nutility if every moderately complex idea is hit with reflexive\nopposition by people who don't understand it.\n\nPeter Todd has proposed something fairly similar with \"STXO\ncommitments\". The primary argument against this kind of approach that\nI'm aware of is that the membership proofs get pretty big, and if too\naggressive this trades bandwidth for storage, and storage is usually\nthe cheaper resource. Though at least the membership proofs could be\nomitted when transmitting to a node which has signaled that it has\nkept the historical data anyways."}