On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 20:48:05 +0530
mark M <write2ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Couldn’t we just prune the old spent transactions in the blockchain and keep
> the chain and dB smaller
well, to verify new transactions you only need the UTXO set - problem
is, in order to get the UTXO set you have to parse the whole transaction
history starting from day zero.
you can run a prunning node, which only keeps the UTXO set, but that
only saves storage space - you still need to process the whole blockchain at
least once.
there doesn't seem to be an easy solution to the problem, otherwise it
would have been adopted, I'd assume.
>
> >
> > On Jul 3, 2018 at 6:58 AM, <juan (mailto:juan....@gmail.com)> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 17:50:02 -0700
> > Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I guess for you the article is a TL;DR. There was NOT a suggestion of
> > > simple confiscation. All one had to do, to prevent "reclamation", is to
> > > periodically move assets on the blockchain.
> >
> >
> > I know. So if you for whatever reason fail to move your funds they are
> > stolen. Doesn't seem like a sensible protocol. Also, moving funds every a
> > fixed period seems like a good way to make tracking easier?
> >
> > Last but not least what do you gain by forcing people to create new UTXOs
> > from existing UTXOs?? Most of the data in the ledger is old spent
> > transactions which are mostly useless*, except they are needed to make sure
> > the supply hasn't been tampered with.
> >
> >
> > *except for spying that is.
> >
