Implemented a few of your suggestions.
Also opened a formal pull request for the BIP at
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/389 and the code at
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8068.
On 05/09/16 17:06, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On 05/03/2016 12:13 AM, lf-lists at mattcorallo.
On 5/17/16, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Nice!
>
> We’ve been talking about doing this forever and it’s so desperately needed.
>
"So desperately needed"? How do you figure? The UTXO set is currently
1.5 GB. What kind of computer these days doesn't have 1.5 GB of
memory? Since you people
Great post, Peter.
4) By fixing the problem (or possibly just "fixing" the problem) are
we encouraging/legitimising blockchain use-cases other than BTC value
transfer? Should we?
I don't think it would encourage non-value-transfer usage more
because, as you noted, many such use cases are valuable
Nice!
We’ve been talking about doing this forever and it’s so desperately needed.
> On May 17, 2016, at 3:23 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> # Motivation
>
> UTXO growth is a serious concern for Bitcoin's long-term decentralization. To
> run a competitive mining operation potentia
# Motivation
UTXO growth is a serious concern for Bitcoin's long-term decentralization. To
run a competitive mining operation potentially the entire UTXO set must be in
RAM to achieve competitive latency; your larger, more centralized, competitors
will have the UTXO set in RAM. Mining is a zero-su
