Jorge Tim贸n [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 馃搮 Original date posted:2017-09-09 馃摑 Original message:Tier Nolan, right, a new ...
馃搮 Original date posted:2017-09-09
馃摑 Original message:Tier Nolan, right, a new tx version would be required.
I have to look deeper into the CT as sf proposal.
What futures upgrades could this conflict with it's precisely the
question here. So that vague statement without providing any example
it's not very valuable.
Although TXO commitments are interesting, I don't think they make UTXO
growth a "non-issue" and I also don't think they justify not doing
this.
Yeah, the costs for spammers are very small and doesn't really improve
things all that much, as acknowledged in the initial post.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:51:45PM +0200, Jorge Tim贸n via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> This is not a priority, not very important either.
>> Right now it is possible to create 0-value outputs that are spendable
>> and thus stay in the utxo (potentially forever). Requiring at least 1
>> satoshi per output doesn't really do much against a spam attack to the
>> utxo, but I think it would be slightly better than the current
>> situation.
>
> Given that this has a very minimal cost for spammers - just a single satoshi -
> I don't think this is worth the risk of making future upgrades more complex as
> other posters have brought up.
>
> Secondly, I think we have good reason to think that things like my own TXO
> commitments and Bram's related work will make UTXO growth a non-issue in the
> future.
>
> So, I'd NACK such a proposal myself.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
馃摑 Original message:Tier Nolan, right, a new tx version would be required.
I have to look deeper into the CT as sf proposal.
What futures upgrades could this conflict with it's precisely the
question here. So that vague statement without providing any example
it's not very valuable.
Although TXO commitments are interesting, I don't think they make UTXO
growth a "non-issue" and I also don't think they justify not doing
this.
Yeah, the costs for spammers are very small and doesn't really improve
things all that much, as acknowledged in the initial post.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:51:45PM +0200, Jorge Tim贸n via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> This is not a priority, not very important either.
>> Right now it is possible to create 0-value outputs that are spendable
>> and thus stay in the utxo (potentially forever). Requiring at least 1
>> satoshi per output doesn't really do much against a spam attack to the
>> utxo, but I think it would be slightly better than the current
>> situation.
>
> Given that this has a very minimal cost for spammers - just a single satoshi -
> I don't think this is worth the risk of making future upgrades more complex as
> other posters have brought up.
>
> Secondly, I think we have good reason to think that things like my own TXO
> commitments and Bram's related work will make UTXO growth a non-issue in the
> future.
>
> So, I'd NACK such a proposal myself.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org