Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-09-07 📝 Original message:On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2017-09-07
📝 Original message:On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:51:45PM +0200, Jorge Timón 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170907/da9b038a/attachment-0001.sig>;