If 1 Sat reached 100$, you may adjust the delete( or call it omitting or trimming) threshold, since you will need to acquire decimal places inside the Sat variable too ( people may have TXs less than 100$)

-Talking with today's numbers, 

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

it is hard to imagine that someone's all holdings in Bitcoin is just ≤1000 Sat (3.15 m address) or even ≤10,000 Sat (4.1$, with currently 7.6m addresses in addition to the 3.15m)

So we'll just incentivise those people to find a low fee time in say a 6 month interval and collect those UTXOs into one of at least 5$ (10.86m≤4.1$) or 1$ (5.248m≤1$) your decision.

-During 4 days after showing the smaller intervals, those ≤1000Sat increase by ~2K everyday with total holding increased by 0.01BTC. Addresses in millions:

3.148, 3.1509, 3.152895, 3.154398

Total BTC: 

14.91,14.92,14.93,14.94

-The number of ≤10,000 Sat increases by 4-8 k per day.

Addresses in millions:

7.627477, 7.631436, 7.639287, 7.644925

Total BTC

333.5, 333.63, 333.89, 334.1

-remember that no. of addresses is a lowerbound on no. of UTXOs; ie., the real numbers could be even more.

.

+ There's also non-standard & burned , yes they're about 0.6m UTXOs, but they're misleading on the status of the value they hold.

.

At the end, I'm just suggesting...

.

Regards,

Shymaa

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022, 00:16 <damian@willtech.com.au> wrote:

Good Morning,

I wish to point out that because fees are variable there is no reason
fees could not be less than 1 sat in future if fees climb. You may
consider this optimistic but I recall in the first days of Bitcoin when
fees were voluntary. It is not unreasonable provided the fungibility
(money-like-quality) of Bitcoin is maintained for 1 sat to be worth over
$100.00 in the future.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
duigco.org DUIGCO API
and other projects


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
email if misdelivered.
--------------
On 2022-02-06 09:39, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Dear Bitcoin Developers,
>
>> -When I contacted bitInfoCharts to divide the first interval of
>> addresses, they kindly did divided to 3 intervals. From here:
>> https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
>> -You can see that there are more than 3.1m addresses holding ≤
>> 0.000001 BTC (1000 Sat) with total value of 14.9BTC; an average of 473
>> Sat per address.
>
>> -Therefore, a simple solution would be to follow the difficulty
>> adjustment idea and just delete all those
>
> That would be a soft-fork, and arguably could be considered theft.
> While commonly (but non universally) implemented standardness rules
> may prevent spending them currently, there is no requirement that such
> a rule remain in place. Depending on how feerate economics work out in
> the future, such outputs may not even remain uneconomical to spend.
> Therefore, dropping them entirely from the UTXO set is potentially
> destroying potentially useful funds people own.
>
>> or at least remove them to secondary storage
>
> Commonly adopted Bitcoin full nodes already have two levels of storage
> effectively (disk and in-RAM cache). It may be useful to investigate
> using amount as a heuristic about what to keep and how long. IIRC, not
> even every full node implementation even uses a UTXO model.
>
>> for Archiving with extra cost to get them back, along with
>> non-standard UTXOs and Burned ones (at least for publicly known,
>> published, burn addresses).
>
> Do you mean this as a standardness rule, or a consensus rule?
>
> * As a standardness rule it's feasible, but it makes policy (further)
> deviate from economically rational behavior. There is no reason for
> miners to require a higher price for spending such outputs.
> * As a consensus rule, I expect something like this to be very
> controversial. There are currently no rules that demand any minimal
> fee for anything, and given uncertainly over how fee levels could
> evolve in the future, it's unclear what those rules, if any, should
> be.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pieter
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev