From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>,
Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach•de>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A suggestion for reducing the size of the UTXO database
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 13:38:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgFAhVA=SBfPyz7dQAsGuyA_gBGexWao6FzUgGuRbqGrQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <COL402-EAS2801DD28568B04AF7E4005CCDDD0@phx.gbl>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2695 bytes --]
Miners do not care about the age of a UTXO entry, apart for two exceptions.
It is also economically irrelevant.
* There is a free transaction policy, which sets a small portion of block
space aside for transactions which do not pay sufficient fee. This is
mostly an altruistic way of encouraging Bitcoin adoption. As a DoS
prevention mechanism, there is a requirement that these free transactions
are of sufficient priority (computed as BTC-days-destroyed per byte),
essentially requiring these transactions to consume another scarce
resource, even if not money.
* Coinbase transaction outputs can, as a consensus rule, only be spent
after 100 confirmations. This is to prevent random reorganisations from
invalidating transactions that spend young coinbase transactions (which
can't move to the new chain). In addition, wallets also select more
confirmed outputs first to consume, for the same reason.
On May 9, 2015 1:20 PM, "Raystonn" <raystonn@hotmail•com> wrote:
> That policy is included in Bitcoin Core. Miners use it because it is the
> default. The policy was likely intended to help real transactions get
> through in the face of spam. But it favors those with more bitcoin, as the
> priority is determined by amount spent multiplied by age of UTXOs. At the
> very least the amount spent should be removed as a factor, or fees are
> unlikely to ever be paid by those who can afford them. We can reassess the
> role age plays later. One change at a time is better.
> On 9 May 2015 12:52 pm, Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia•org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail•com> wrote:
>
> How about this as a happy medium default policy: Rather than select UTXOs
> based solely on age and limiting the size of the transaction, we select as
> many UTXOs as possible from as few addresses as possible, prioritizing
> which addresses to use based on the number of UTXOs it contains (more being
> preferable) and how old those UTXOs are (in order to reduce the fee)?
>
> If selecting older UTXOs gives higher priority for a lesser (or at least
> not greater) fee, that is an incentive for a rational user to use the older
> UTXOs. Such policy needs to be defended or removed. It doesn't support
> privacy or a reduction in UTXOs.
>
> Before starting this thread, I had completely forgotten that age was even
> a factor in determining which UTXOs to use. Frankly, I can't think of any
> reason why miners care how old a particular UTXO is when determining what
> fees to charge. I'm sure there is one, I just don't know what it is. I just
> tossed it in there as homage to Andreas who pointed out to me that it was
> still part of the selection criteria.
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3718 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-09 20:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-09 20:20 Raystonn
2015-05-09 20:38 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2015-05-09 21:11 ` Jim Phillips
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-05-09 19:43 Raystonn
2015-05-09 19:52 ` Jim Phillips
2015-05-09 19:25 Raystonn
2015-05-09 19:33 ` Jim Phillips
2015-05-09 17:09 Jim Phillips
2015-05-09 18:45 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-09 19:02 ` Jim Phillips
2015-05-09 19:00 ` Andreas Schildbach
2015-05-09 19:05 ` Jim Phillips
2015-05-09 19:06 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-05-09 19:16 ` Jim Phillips
2015-05-09 19:43 ` Ross Nicoll
[not found] ` <3862E01F-FD0F-48F5-A6D9-F8E0FB0AB68F@newcastle.ac.uk>
[not found] ` <CANe1mWys1gAO1CgPEpD7rdtXF2KYfvXA6bc0q-rAzg9xOFc-5A@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <8029969D-FD22-43F7-930D-CEC7A87CEAD5@newcastle.ac.uk>
2015-05-09 19:28 ` Jim Phillips
2015-05-10 2:11 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-05-10 12:11 ` Jim Phillips
2015-05-25 18:41 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-25 20:03 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-05-25 20:29 ` Andreas Schildbach
2015-05-25 21:05 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-26 12:40 ` Andreas Schildbach
2015-05-25 21:14 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-05-25 21:12 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-10 13:35 ` Bob McElrath
2015-05-10 14:33 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-05-10 14:42 ` Bob McElrath
2015-05-12 19:50 ` Danny Thorpe
2015-05-25 18:44 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-25 21:26 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-25 22:03 ` Mike Hearn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAPg+sBgFAhVA=SBfPyz7dQAsGuyA_gBGexWao6FzUgGuRbqGrQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=andreas@schildbach$(echo .)de \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=raystonn@hotmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox