Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > > > On 20 December 2015 08:30:45 GMT-08:00, Chris Pacia > wrote: > >On Dec 20, 2015 6:34 AM, "Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev" < >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

On 12/20/2015 3:34 AM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Ideally we should start having wallets generate those proofs now, and > then introduce the max-age as a second step as a planned hard fork a > couple years down the line. > > However, > 1) There is also the open question of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > What I proprosed is that a consensus-critical maximum UTXO age be part > of the protocol; UTXO's younger than that age are expected to be cached. > For UTXO's older than that age, they

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

On Dec 20, 2015 6:34 AM, "Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 2) This reverses the useful minimization attribute of HD wallets - "just backup the seed" It would be nice if the bip37 filter matching algorithm was extended to serve up the proof. And if

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

What will be the actual effect over wallets? Say I have the private key for a dormant UTXO older than the consensus-critical maximum UTXO age. The UTXO is not part of the cache. So I setup a full node and import my old private key (wallet.dat). Will I even see the correct balance (where will it

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 20 December 2015 08:30:45 GMT-08:00, Chris Pacia wrote: >On Dec 20, 2015 6:34 AM, "Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev" < >bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> 2) This reverses the useful minimization attribute of HD

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

I really like ideas that tackle this issue. The question imho is what is the incentive to run a "Full UTXO node" instead of a pruned or archive node. For starters, it would be nice to know what would be the savings for Full UTXO nodes over archive nodes right now. Also, what advantages would this

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

> In none of these cases do you lose anything. Nor do you gain anything. Archive nodes will still need to exist precisely because paper wallets don't include UTXO data. This is like adding the ability to partially seed a movie with bittorrent. You still need someone who has the whole thing has to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

What is the current behavior / cost that this proposal is trying to avoid? Are ancient utxos required to be kept in memory always in a fully validating node, or can ancient utxos get pushed out of memory like a normal LRU caching db? Thanks, -Danny On Dec 12, 2015 1:55 PM, "jl2012--- via

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 6:11 PM, jl2012--- via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Back to the topic, I would like to further elaborate my proposal. > > We have 3 types of full nodes: > > Archive nodes: full nodes that store the whole blockchain > Full UTXO nodes: full

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Danny Thorpe wrote: What is the current behavior / cost that this proposal is trying to avoid? Are ancient utxos required to be kept in memory always in a fully validating node, or can

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

Dormant threshold is way too low. There's many news articles about people forgetting that they used to mine bitcoins and then suddenly remembered. This will continue to happen for much longer than 8 years as people rediscover bitcoin when it goes further mainstream. You can't expect them to have

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev wrote: > have run a node/kept their utxo before they were aware of this change and > then realise miners have discarded their utxo. Oops? I believe you have misunderstood jl2012's post. His

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forget dormant UTXOs without confiscating bitcoin

The general concept has merit and the basic outline here seems sound enough. I have harboured a notion for having "archived UTXO" for some time, this is essentially it. The retrieval from archive cost is on the UTXO holder not the entire storage network, which is then only bearing full 'instant'