rich1.0npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwethttps://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-12-13 📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > have run a node/kept their utxo before they were aware of this change and > then realise miners have discarded their utxo. Oops? I believe you have misunderstood jl2012's post. His post does not cause the outputs to become discarded. They are still spendable, but the transactions must carry a membership proof to spend them. They don't have to have stored the data themselves, but they must get it from somewhere-- including archive nodes that serve this purpose rather than having every full node carry all that data forever. Please be conservative with the send button. The list loses its utility if every moderately complex idea is hit with reflexive opposition by people who don't understand it. Peter Todd has proposed something fairly similar with "STXO commitments". The primary argument against this kind of approach that I'm aware of is that the membership proofs get pretty big, and if too aggressive this trades bandwidth for storage, and storage is usually the cheaper resource. Though at least the membership proofs could be omitted when transmitting to a node which has signaled that it has kept the historical data anyways.