rich1.0npub1ghl954l59wm5pnv8j2y0ymmp6dt70kx2037e06wavfut7gjh68hqdgc6pdhttps://nostr.ae/npub1ghl954l59wm5pnv8j2y0ymmp6dt70kx2037e06wavfut7gjh68hqdgc6pdnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-08-21 📝 Original message:A more forgiving option would be to have coins past a certain age evaporate into mining rewards at some rate, rather than all at once. People might find this approach easier to stomach as it avoids the "I waited 1 block to many and all of my coins vanished" scenario. Another approach would to demand that a certain minimum mining fee be included that is calculated based on the age of an input like this idea: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35ilir/prioritizing_utxos_using_a_minimum_mining_fee/ This would result in the coins continuing to exist but not being economically spendable, and therefore the UTXO information could be archived. On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Thomas Guyot-Sionnest via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 21/07/17 03:59 PM, Lucas Clemente Vella via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > 2017-07-21 16:28 GMT-03:00 Major Kusanagi via bitcoin-dev > > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>>: > > > > [...] But the fact is that if we want to make bitcoins last forever, > > we have the accept unbounded UTXO growth, which is unscalable. So > > the only solution is to limit UTXO growth, meaning bitcoins cannot > > last forever. This proposed solution however does not prevent > > Bitcoin from lasting forever. > > > > > > Unless there is a logical contradiction in this phrasing, the proposed > > solution does not improves scalability: > > - "Bitcoins lasting forever" implies "unscalable"; > > - "not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever" implies "Bitcoins lasting > > forever"; > > - Thus: "not prevent Bitcoin from lasting forever" implies "unscalable". > > > > In practice, the only Bitcoin lost would be those whose owners forgot > > about or has lost the keys, because everyone with a significant amount > > of Bitcoins would always shift them around before it loses any luster (I > > wouldn't bother to move my Bitcoins every 10 years). I don't know how to > > estimate the percentage of UTXO is actually lost/forgotten, but I have > > the opinion it isn't worth the hassle. > > > > As a side note, your estimate talks about block size, which is > > determines blockchain size, which can be "safely" pruned (if you are not > > considering new nodes might want to join the network, in case the full > > history is needed to be stored somewhere). But UTXO size, albeit related > > to the full blockchain size, is the part that currently can not be > > safely pruned, so I don't see the relevance of the analysis. > > I think if we wanted to burn lost/stale coins a better approach would be > returning them to miner's as a fee - there will always be lost coins and > miners will be able to get that additional revenue stream as the mining > reward halves. I also don't think we need to worry about doing a gradual > value loss neither, we should just put a limit on UTXO age in block > count (actually I would round it up to 210k blocks as explained below...). > > > So lets say for example we decide to keep 5 210k blocks "generations" > (that's over 15 years), then on the first block of the 6th generation > all UTXO's from the 1st generation are invalidated and returned into a > "pool". > > Given these (values in satoshis): > > Pool "P" (invalided UTXO minus total value reclaimed since last halving) > Leftover blocks "B" (210,000 minus blocks mined since last halving) > > Then every mined block can reclaim FLOOR(P/B) satoshi in addition to > miner's reward and tx fees. > > If the last block of a generation does not get the remainder of the pool > (FLOOR(P/1) == P) it should get carried over. > > > This would ensure we can clear old blocks after a few generations and > that burnt/lost coins eventually get back in circulation. Also it would > reduce the reliance of miners on actual TX fees. > > > To avoid excessive miner reward initially, for the first few iterations > the value of B could be increased (I haven't calculated the UTXO size of > the first 210k blocks but it could be excessively high...) or the value > each block can reclaim could be caped (so we would reclaim at an > artificial capacity until the pool depletes...). > > > Regards, > > -- > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170821/476f95f6/attachment-0001.html>