IMHO, you don't even need a technical argument to show that the blockchain is sound. Consider that there have been billions of dollars at stake for quite some time - and malicious actors have yet to break it.
This upcoming block size increase beyond 1M (however it occurs) should provide some transaction fee relief. Also nothing is written in stone about the degree of precision to carry the amount. People freaked out in the past when approaching the first halving of the mining reward, and when Ghash.io was nearing 51% hashing power. It is an incredibly resilient technology and it worked itself out in the rodeo.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13848
Topic: Hard fork for new transaction type for all bitcoins from single address. (Read 844 times)
June 10, 2017, 08:47:19 AM
June 10, 2017, 03:16:13 AM
Quote
I can see why. At this time I don't see any way around it.
Do you think it can't be accepted or it is technically not sound. June 09, 2017, 03:34:01 PM
I can see why. At this time I don't see any way around it.
June 09, 2017, 10:53:18 AM
Quote
I think I understand what you are trying to get at. Is it reducing the unspent transaction output set by doing a many to one transaction under a single key?
It is true that UXTO is growing. You can see that here:
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set
But remember, one could even hand craft any flavor of transaction and submit it to the network. but any transaction is worthless unless miners pick it up and hash it into the block chain.
I suspect you are talking about transactions that are small relative to the transaction fee, so miners would ignore them.
But maybe I'm not seeing your point. At any rate, happy to see someone digging into the docs.
It is true that UXTO is growing. You can see that here:
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set
But remember, one could even hand craft any flavor of transaction and submit it to the network. but any transaction is worthless unless miners pick it up and hash it into the block chain.
I suspect you are talking about transactions that are small relative to the transaction fee, so miners would ignore them.
But maybe I'm not seeing your point. At any rate, happy to see someone digging into the docs.
Yes you understand me correctly. This is very important for donation usecase. Video streamers are now forced to use other cryptos because of this. Half of all utxo are unspendible right now.
June 09, 2017, 06:09:01 AM
I think I understand what you are trying to get at. Is it reducing the unspent transaction output set by doing a many to one transaction under a single key?
It is true that UXTO is growing. You can see that here:
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set
But remember, one could even hand craft any flavor of transaction and submit it to the network. but any transaction is worthless unless miners pick it up and hash it into the block chain.
I suspect you are talking about transactions that are small relative to the transaction fee, so miners would ignore them.
But maybe I'm not seeing your point. At any rate, happy to see someone digging into the docs.
It is true that UXTO is growing. You can see that here:
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set
But remember, one could even hand craft any flavor of transaction and submit it to the network. but any transaction is worthless unless miners pick it up and hash it into the block chain.
I suspect you are talking about transactions that are small relative to the transaction fee, so miners would ignore them.
But maybe I'm not seeing your point. At any rate, happy to see someone digging into the docs.
June 09, 2017, 05:06:12 AM
I thought this would be too easy and too good for not being offered before so i thought that i must have missed some obvious basic problem with this. I was hoping for someone to tell me where i make mistake.
June 08, 2017, 11:11:56 AM
Fees are very big and it gets even bigger if a transaction cointains many inputs. But good thing about many input transactions is that it generally contains only one public key so one signiture is enough.
This is transaction data from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction braces used to show new format.
Input:
Previous tx: f5d8ee39a430901c91a5917b9f2dc19d6d1a0e9cea205b009ca73dd04470b9a6 (Public Key)
Index: 0 (-1 means all transactions upto previous block)
scriptSig: 304502206e21798a42fae0e854281abd38bacd1aeed3ee3738d9e1446618c4571d10
90db022100e2ac980643b0b82c0e88ffdfec6b64e3e6ba35e7ba5fdd7d5d6cc8d25c6b241501
Output:
Value: 5000000000
scriptPubKey: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 404371705fa9bd789a2fcd52d2c580b65d35549d
OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
It makes managing UTXO set more complicated but i think it is a good sacrifice considering it s a scaling solution and many UTXOs are unspendable right now.
I don't know anything like this ever suggested before or does it have any problems i have not thought. It may be merged to any blocksize increase HF.
Please share your thoughts on this. Thanks for advance
This is transaction data from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction braces used to show new format.
Input:
Previous tx: f5d8ee39a430901c91a5917b9f2dc19d6d1a0e9cea205b009ca73dd04470b9a6 (Public Key)
Index: 0 (-1 means all transactions upto previous block)
scriptSig: 304502206e21798a42fae0e854281abd38bacd1aeed3ee3738d9e1446618c4571d10
90db022100e2ac980643b0b82c0e88ffdfec6b64e3e6ba35e7ba5fdd7d5d6cc8d25c6b241501
Output:
Value: 5000000000
scriptPubKey: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 404371705fa9bd789a2fcd52d2c580b65d35549d
OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
It makes managing UTXO set more complicated but i think it is a good sacrifice considering it s a scaling solution and many UTXOs are unspendable right now.
I don't know anything like this ever suggested before or does it have any problems i have not thought. It may be merged to any blocksize increase HF.
Please share your thoughts on this. Thanks for advance
Jump to: