> On Feb 6, 2022, at 10:52, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > >> Dear Bitcoin Developers, > >> -When I contacted bitInfoCharts to divide the first interval of addresses, >> they kindly did divided to 3 intervals. From here: >> https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html >> -You can see that there are more than 3.1m addresses holding ≤ 0.000001 BTC >> (1000 Sat) with total value of 14.9BTC; an average of 473 Sat per address. > >> -Therefore, a simple solution would be to follow the difficulty adjustment >> idea and just delete all those > > That would be a soft-fork, and arguably could be considered theft. While > commonly (but non universally) implemented standardness rules may prevent > spending them currently, there is no requirement that such a rule remain in > place. Depending on how feerate economics work out in the future, such > outputs may not even remain uneconomical to spend. Therefore, dropping them > entirely from the UTXO set is potentially destroying potentially useful funds > people own. > >> or at least remove them to secondary storage > > Commonly adopted Bitcoin full nodes already have two levels of storage > effectively (disk and in-RAM cache). It may be useful to investigate using > amount as a heuristic about what to keep and how long. IIRC, not even every > full node implementation even uses a UTXO model.
You recall correctly. Libbitcoin has never used a UTXO store. A full node has no logical need for an additional store of outputs, as transactions already contain them, and a full node requires all of them, spent or otherwise. The hand-wringing over UTXO set size does not apply to full nodes, it is relevant only to pruning. Given linear worst case growth, even that is ultimately a non-issue. >> for Archiving with extra cost to get them back, along with non-standard >> UTXOs and Burned ones (at least for publicly known, published, burn >> addresses). > > Do you mean this as a standardness rule, or a consensus rule? > > * As a standardness rule it's feasible, but it makes policy (further) deviate > from economically rational behavior. There is no reason for miners to require > a higher price for spending such outputs. > * As a consensus rule, I expect something like this to be very controversial. > There are currently no rules that demand any minimal fee for anything, and > given uncertainly over how fee levels could evolve in the future, it's > unclear what those rules, if any, should be. > > Cheers, > > -- > Pieter > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
