It kills Bitcoin as a store of value. Disk space is not the problem; bandwidth is. The blockchain won't go to infinity as you suggest, as it is bounded by certain constraints. It's growth is a function of the transactions in a block, and the number of blocks is linear in growth.
Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 25, 2017, at 5:54 PM, Patrick Sharp via bitcoin-dev > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Devs, > > I am Patrick Sharp. I just graduated with a BS is computer science. Forgive > my ignorance. > > As per bip-0002 I have scoured each bip available on the wiki to see if these > ideas have already been formally proposed and now as per bip-0002 post these > ideas here. > > First and foremost I acknowledge that these ideas are not original nor new. > > Trimming and demurrage: > > I am fully aware that demurrage is a prohibited change. I hereby contest. For > the record I am not a miner, I am just aware of the economics that drive the > costs of bitcoin. > > Without the ability to maintain some sort of limit on the maximum length or > size of the block chain, block chain is not only unsustainable in the long > run but becomes more and more centralized as the block chain becomes more and > more unwieldy. > > Trimming is not a foreign concept. Old block whose transactions are now spent > hold no real value. Meaningful trimming is expensive and inhibited by unspent > transactions. Old unspent transactions add unnecessary and unfair burden. > Old transactions take up real world space that continues incur cost while > these transactions they do not continue to contribute to any sort of payment > for this cost. > One can assume that anybody with access to their bitcoins has the power to > move these bitcoins from one address to another (or at least that the > software that holds the keys to their coins can do it for them) and it is not > unfair to require them to do so at least once every 5 to 10 years. > Given the incentive to move it or lose it and software that will do it for > them, we can assume that any bitcoin not moved is most likey therefore lost. > moving these coins will cost a small transaction fee which is fair as their > transactions take up space, they need to contribute > most people who use their coins regularly will not even need to worry about > this as their coins are moved to a change address anyway. > one downside is that paper wallets would then have an expiration date, > however I do not think that a paper wallet that needs to be recycled every 5 > to 10 years is a terrible idea. > Therefore I propose that the block chain length be limited to either 2^18 > blocks (slightly less than 5 years) or 2^19 blocks, or slightly less than 10 > years. I propose that each time a block is mined the the oldest block(s) (no > more than two blocks) beyond this limit is trimmed from the chain and that > its unspent transactions are allowed to be included in the reward of the > mined block. > > This keeps the block chain from tending towards infinity. This keeps the > costs of the miners balanced with the costs of the users. > > Even though I believe this idea will have some friction, it is applicable to > the entire community. It will be hard for some users to give up small > benefits that they get at the great cost of miners, however miners run the > game and this fair proposal is in in their best interest in two different > ways. I would like your thoughts and suggestions. I obviously think this is a > freaking awesome idea. I know it is quite controversial but it is the next > step in evolution that bitcoin needs to take to ensure immortality. > > I come to you to ask if this has any chance of acceptance. > > -Patrick > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
