{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-08-21\n📝 Original message:1. If it only affects \"old dust\" UTXO's where the # of coins in the UTXO\naren't sufficient to pay some lower quantile of transaction fees, then\nthere can be little argument of theft or loss.\n\n2. There's another use-case for demurrage as well.\n\nComputation power may grow rapidly if quantum computing becomes more\ncommon.  At some point, Bitcoin may have to change the public key format\nfor coins and the POW used.\n\nIn order to do this, old coins will have to transact on the network, moving\ntheir value to a new format, with many more bits in the public key, for\nexample.   But since quantum computing isn't bounded by moore's law, so\nthis may need to be a regular upgrade every X years.   Rather than a\nregular \"bit widening hard fork\", the number of bits needed in a public\naddress format could be scaled to the difficulty of the new quantum hashing\nalgorithm that *also must *now grow in the # of bits over time.   To ensure\nthat coins are secure, those with too few bits must drop off the network.\nSo the timing for old coin demurrage can effectively be based on the\nquantum POW difficulty adjustments.   As long as the subsequent exponential\nrate of computation increase can be reasonably predicted (quantum version\nof moore's law), the new rate of decay can be pegged to a number of years.\n\n\n\nOn Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Moral Agent via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e A more forgiving option would be to have coins past a certain age\n\u003e evaporate into mining rewards at some rate, rather than all at once. People\n\u003e might find this approach easier to stomach as it avoids the \"I waited 1\n\u003e block to many and all of my coins vanished\" scenario.\n\u003e\n\u003e Another approach would to demand that a certain minimum mining fee be\n\u003e included that is calculated based on the age of an input like this idea:\n\u003e https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35ilir/\n\u003e prioritizing_utxos_using_a_minimum_mining_fee/\n\u003e\n\u003e This would result in the coins continuing to exist but not being\n\u003e economically spendable, and therefore the UTXO information could be\n\u003e archived.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Thomas Guyot-Sionnest via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On 21/07/17 03:59 PM, Lucas Clemente Vella via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e 2017-07-21 16:28 GMT-03:00 Major Kusanagi via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e     [...] But the fact is that if we want to make bitcoins last forever,\n\u003e\u003e \u003e     we have the accept unbounded UTXO growth, which is unscalable. So\n\u003e\u003e \u003e     the only solution is to limit UTXO growth, meaning bitcoins cannot\n\u003e\u003e \u003e     last forever. This proposed solution however does not prevent\n\u003e\u003e \u003e     Bitcoin from lasting forever.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Unless there is a logical contradiction in this phrasing, the proposed\n\u003e\u003e \u003e solution does not improves scalability:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e  - \"Bitcoins lasting forever\" implies \"unscalable\";\n\u003e\u003e \u003e  - \"not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever\" implies \"Bitcoins lasting\n\u003e\u003e \u003e forever\";\n\u003e\u003e \u003e  - Thus: \"not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever\" implies\n\u003e\u003e \"unscalable\".\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e In practice, the only Bitcoin lost would be those whose owners forgot\n\u003e\u003e \u003e about or has lost the keys, because everyone with a significant amount\n\u003e\u003e \u003e of Bitcoins would always shift them around before it loses any luster (I\n\u003e\u003e \u003e wouldn't bother to move my Bitcoins every 10 years). I don't know how to\n\u003e\u003e \u003e estimate the percentage of UTXO is actually lost/forgotten, but I have\n\u003e\u003e \u003e the opinion it isn't worth the hassle.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e As a side note, your estimate talks about block size, which is\n\u003e\u003e \u003e determines blockchain size, which can be \"safely\" pruned (if you are not\n\u003e\u003e \u003e considering new nodes might want to join the network, in case the full\n\u003e\u003e \u003e history is needed to be stored somewhere). But UTXO size, albeit related\n\u003e\u003e \u003e to the full blockchain size, is the part that currently can not be\n\u003e\u003e \u003e safely pruned, so I don't see the relevance of the analysis.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I think if we wanted to burn lost/stale coins a better approach would be\n\u003e\u003e returning them to miner's as a fee - there will always be lost coins and\n\u003e\u003e miners will be able to get that additional revenue stream as the mining\n\u003e\u003e reward halves. I also don't think we need to worry about doing a gradual\n\u003e\u003e value loss neither, we should just put a limit on UTXO age in block\n\u003e\u003e count (actually I would round it up to 210k blocks as explained below...).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e So lets say for example we decide to keep 5 210k blocks \"generations\"\n\u003e\u003e (that's over 15 years), then on the first block of the 6th generation\n\u003e\u003e all UTXO's from the 1st generation are invalidated and returned into a\n\u003e\u003e \"pool\".\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Given these (values in satoshis):\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Pool \"P\" (invalided UTXO minus total value reclaimed since last halving)\n\u003e\u003e Leftover blocks \"B\" (210,000 minus blocks mined since last halving)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Then every mined block can reclaim FLOOR(P/B) satoshi in addition to\n\u003e\u003e miner's reward and tx fees.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If the last block of a generation does not get the remainder of the pool\n\u003e\u003e (FLOOR(P/1) == P) it should get carried over.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This would ensure we can clear old blocks after a few generations and\n\u003e\u003e that burnt/lost coins eventually get back in circulation. Also it would\n\u003e\u003e reduce the reliance of miners on actual TX fees.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e To avoid excessive miner reward initially, for the first few iterations\n\u003e\u003e the value of B could be increased (I haven't calculated the UTXO size of\n\u003e\u003e the first 210k blocks but it could be excessively high...) or the value\n\u003e\u003e each block can reclaim could be caped (so we would reclaim at an\n\u003e\u003e artificial capacity until the pool depletes...).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Regards,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e Thomas\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170821/6c3b768b/attachment.html\u003e"}