{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kc0zulxt7j4a0ayhzhrz7jk84y7tm4026qcky7w97hlfkxxap24qnwjfw4","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kc0zulxt7j4a0ayhzhrz7jk84y7tm4026qcky7w97hlfkxxap24qnwjfw4","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-12-13\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA256\n\nOn Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Danny Thorpe \u003cdanny.thorpe at gmail.com\u003e \nwrote:\n\u003e What is the current behavior / cost that this proposal is trying to \n\u003e avoid? Are ancient utxos required to be kept in memory always in a \n\u003e fully validating node, or can ancient utxos get pushed out of memory \n\u003e like a normal LRU caching db?\n\nI don't see why it must be kept in memory. But storage is still a \nproblem. With the 8 year limit and a fixed max block size, it indirectly \nsets an upper limit for UTXO set.\n\n\nChris Priest via bitcoin-dev :\n\u003e This isn't going to kill bitcoin, but it won't make it any better.\n\nDo you believe that thousands of volunteer full nodes are obliged to \nstore an UTXO record, just because one paid US$0.01 to an anonymous \nminer 100 years ago? It sounds insanely cheap, isn't it? My proposal (or \nsimilar proposal by Peter Todd) is to solve this problem. Many \ncommercial banks have a dormant threshold less than 8 years so I believe \nit is a balanced choice.\n\nBack to the topic, I would like to further elaborate my proposal.\n\nWe have 3 types of full nodes:\n\nArchive nodes: full nodes that store the whole blockchain\nFull UTXO nodes: full nodes that fully store the latest UTXO state, but \nnot the raw blockchain\nLite UTXO nodes: full nodes that store only UTXO created in that past \n420000 blocks\n\nCurrently, if one holds nothing but a private key, he must consult \neither an archive node or a full UTXO node for the latest UTXO state to \nspend his coin. We currently do not have any lite UTXO node, and such \nnode would not work properly beyond block 420000.\n\nWith the softfork I described in my original post, if the UTXO is \ncreated within the last 420000 blocks, the key holder may consult any \ntype of full node, including a lite UTXO node, to create the \ntransaction.\n\nIf the UTXO has been confirmed by more than 420000 blocks, a lite UTXO \nnode obviously can't provide the necessary information to spend the \ncoin. However, not even a full UTXO node may do so. A full UTXO node \ncould tell the position of the UTXO in the blockchain, but can't provide \nall the information required by my specification. Only an archive node \nmay do so.\n\nWhat extra information is needed?\n\n(1) If your UTXO was generated in block Y, you first need to know the \nTXO state (spent / unspent) of all outputs in block Y at block (Y + \n420000). Only UTXOs at that time are relevant.\n\n(2) You also need to know if there was any spending of any block Y UTXOs \nafter block (Y + 420000).\n\nIt is not possible to construct the membership prove I require without \nthese information. It is designed this way, so that lite UTXO nodes \nwon't need to store any dormant UTXO records: not even the hash of \nindividual dormant UTXO records. If the blockchain grows to insanely \nbig, it may take days or weeks to retrieve to records. However, I don't \nthink this is relevant as one has already left his coins dormant for \u003e8 \nyears. Actually, you don't even need the full blockchain. For (1), all \nyou need is the 420000 blocks from Y to Y+420000 minus any witness data, \nas you don't need to do any validation. For (2), you just need the \ncoinbase of Y+420001 to present, where any spending would have been \ncommitted, and retrieve the full block only if a spending is found.\n\nSo the Bitcoin Bank (miners) is not going to shred your record and \nconfiscate your money. Instead, the Bank throws your record to the \ngarage (raw blockchain). You can search for your record by yourself, or \nemploy someone (archive node) to search it for you. In any case it \nincurs costs. But as thousands of bankers have kept your record on their \nlimited desk space for 8 years for free (though one of them might \nreceive a fraction of a penny from you), you shouldn't complain with any \nmoral, technical, or legal reason. And no matter what users say, I \nbelieve something like this will happen when miners and full nodes can't \nhandle the UTXO set.\n\nI'd like to see more efficient proposals that archive the same goals.\n\np.s. there were some typos in my original. The second sentence of the \nsecond paragraph should be read as \"For every block X+420000, it will \ncommit to a hash for all UTXOs generated in block X.\"\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v2\n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\nEMjrOSVnjyuyfey2YXsGnnHuQS0mpwmSroV2400uGQ==\n=2xRy\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}