On Monday 03 December 2012 11:19:37 Michael Gronager wrote:
> The aged coins are simply included in the block mining reward, creating
> another incentive for miners. Further, if we include all coins in this
> recycle scheme coins will never be lost forever.
Ignoring the cost of storing these neve
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Andreas Petersson wrote:
> These discussed features are all useful but quite contradicting.
>
> I imagine that a user will be able to switch between different coin
> selection policies "minimize fees","max privacy","defragmentation","i
> don't care" and even switch
These discussed features are all useful but quite contradicting.
I imagine that a user will be able to switch between different coin
selection policies "minimize fees","max privacy","defragmentation","i
don't care" and even switch between them for individual sends.
-
My only comment is that it should be called escheatment, not demurrage ;)
It's relation to demurrage is only that it might be desirable to garbage
collect decayed bit-dust. We looked at it early-on in the Freicoin
development, but rejected it as a possibility due to reasons others have
mentioned,
These are all valid points. I hadn't really thought much about this point
until you all just brought it up. The reason I so quickly spout off that
phrase, is that I endlessly get requests from Armory users to implement
more anonymity-based features. When I say there are bigger priorities,
they s
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Second thing, it's best to carefully separate "anonymity" from
> "privacy". Privacy is supposed to be a feature of the system (it says
> so in Satoshis paper) because people demand it. If I loan a tenner to
> my friend and he is able to find ou
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Alan Reiner wrote:
> Perhaps it could be improved by cleaning up dust from any address by default
> (not just ones already included in the tx), with the option for the user to
> disable that behavior. After all, anonymity was never a core feature of the
> network
> Perhaps it could be improved by cleaning up dust from any address by default
> (not just ones already included in the tx), with the option for the user to
> disable that behavior. After all, anonymity was never a core feature of the
> network
It's cool that Armory already does this. I never had
On 12/03/2012 10:02 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> (1) Make client software aggressive about sweeping up dust inputs:
> "Any time a transaction is created that has change keep adding in
> extra inputs— smallest to largest— until an additional one would
> increase the cost of the transaction by 0.0001
> It's part of their messaging system. Every losing play results in a
> new 1e-8 output being created.
Every losing play? That's ... not excellent.
Well, this why the payment protocol spec has a way for merchants to
reply to customers with text instead of outputs.
---
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> The main source for these 1 Satoshi payouts is Sahtoshi Dice.
>
> Because people are making 1 satoshi bets, or is this part of their
> messaging system?
It's part of their messaging system. Every losing play results in a
new 1e-8 output being
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Michael Gronager wrote:
> Bitcoin aka the blockchain is defined by the majority of the miners. This is
> what people have signed up to imo. A scheme that a) is of benefit for us all
> and b) is also of economical benefit for the miners, will likely be accepted
>
> The main source for these 1 Satoshi payouts is Sahtoshi Dice.
Because people are making 1 satoshi bets, or is this part of their
messaging system?
Pieter is right, getting consensus behind your proposal is too hard
and it's not likely to ever happen (I wouldn't support it, for one).
Outputs th
> 1) Wouldn't the need to re-transact your coins to keep them safe from
> "vultures", result in people frantically sending coins to themselves, and
> thus expand the block chain, instead of reduce growth?
Not at the rate suggested
> 2) putting those hard limits in passes a value judgement that
I do think it would be nice to sweep up dust transactions, however I'm not
that happy with your solution
1) Wouldn't the need to re-transact your coins to keep them safe from
"vultures", result in people frantically sending coins to themselves, and
thus expand the block chain, instead of reduce gr
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Michael Gronager wrote:
> > If this were a proposal at the time Bitcoin was created, I would
> definitely be in favor, but I feel we can't just change such a policy right
> now - it's not what people signed up for when they started using the
> system. I also see no
> If this were a proposal at the time Bitcoin was created, I would definitely
> be in favor, but I feel we can't just change such a policy right now - it's
> not what people signed up for when they started using the system. I also see
> no way to implement this without a hard fork, which would r
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Michael Gronager wrote:
> (Also posted on the forum:
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128900.0)
>
> The amount of "dust" in the block chain is getting large and it is growing
> all the time. Currently 11% of unspent tx outputs (UTXO) are of 1Satoshi
> (0.0
(Also posted on the forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128900.0)
The amount of "dust" in the block chain is getting large and it is growing all
the time. Currently 11% of unspent tx outputs (UTXO) are of 1Satoshi
(0.0001BTC), 32% is less than 0.0001BTC and 60% is less than 0.001B
19 matches
Mail list logo
