Are you big Developers aware of what is said in this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5385559.new#new That "Omni" ALT coin, and all Alt coins and new protocols do create such extensive amount of dust that they are thinking of dividing 1 Satoshi to fractions or how to accept a UTXO with 0 value???? Isn't that almost the definition of non-standard transactions; the famous 2016 email? https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012715.html
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022, 13:02 yanmaani--- via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 2022-02-07 14:34, Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I do think that UTXO set size is something that will need to be > > addressed at some point. I liked the idea of utreexo or some other > > accumulator as the ultimate solution to this problem. > > What about using economic incentives to disincentivize the creation of > new UTXOs? Currently, the fee is only charged per byte of space. What if > you instead charged a fee of (bytes*byte_weight + > net_utxos*utxo_weight)? For example, if utxo_weight=500, then a > transaction that creates 2 new UTXOs would cost as if it were 1 KB in > size. And a transaction that consolidated 2 UTXOs into one might even > get a negative transaction fee (rebate). > > Technologically, you'd implement this by lowering the block size cap by > max(0, net_utxos_created*utxo_weight). That would be a soft fork, if > maybe a contentious one. It's probably also a good idea to limit it at > 0, separate from consensus issues, because it means you're not > guaranteed to get back whatever you put into it. > _______________________________________________ > 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
