please delete - page 5. | Bitcointalksearch.org

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: DaveF on September 14, 2021, 06:15:02 AM

Storage costs are always dropping.

yeah just like cpu speeds are always getting faster. not.

that's why in that article you linked to, we see them stating "As you’ll see, the hard drive pricing curve has flattened out." there's a reason the pricing curves flatten out and it's due to business economics.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: Dabs on September 14, 2021, 08:27:41 AM

As for Opendimes, I like the concept, it's essentially a cold wallet or one of those physical coins with private keys / more advanced paper wallet. Perhaps for trading purposes, something like Opendimes would do when you have 0.01 BTC in several and you hand it over to someone else when buying stuff.

Maybe 0.001 btc but 0.01 BTC is like $5000. I don't think I woudl trust an opendime to that much money. But I guess it's all relative. If someone can afford to lose 5 grand and it wouldn't hurt them then maybe they would be fine with having an opendime lying around with that much on it. It really is like a ticking time bomb until you take off the funds.

El Salvador should be coming out with their own bitcoin bearer bond bank notes anytime soon though...hopefully they won't go off the "bitcoin standard" though. Because paper money has a way of becoming worthless. there absolutely has to be bitcoins in the bank vault backing up that printed paper I tell ya.

Err I think my math was wrong. 0.01 BTC is $500 but still. For some people that's alot of cash. But maybe worth the risk of losing it just for the coolness factor.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 4418

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 14, 2021, 11:47:21 PM

I get the feeling that your question is somewhat rhetorical in nature and that you don't really believe that anything needs to be "solved". But there are possible solutions to the blockchain size issue. I even thought of one myself recently. Actually 2 of them. I'll share one of them here. the other deserves a bigger platform like its own thread maybe!

Just take a snapshot of the utxo set after mining block #XYZ. The utxo set at that time will becomes the new genesis block. And that is all that would need to be saved. Rince and repeat every 10 years or so. Bitcoin purists and crypto historians can enjoy keeping the old blockchain and actually seeing how things got to the state they are in if they want to while the network goes on about its business in a more efficient manner.

It wasn't really a rhetorical question. Given how the argument is centered about UTXO size, I was wondering if you were concerned about blockchain size as well.

I think this "solution" has been discussed quite a few times, and I don't really find it an issue anymore. We've had pruning for quite a few years now, and it describes exactly what you're talking about. Where users choose to save how much block data they need while discarding the rest and retaining the UTXO. If you prefer to trust someone to tell you what is right at a certain point of time, instead of validating yourself, then it would be better to just use an SPV wallet. I don't expect the majority to require a full node and in the near future, SPV nodes should fulfill their needs instead of wasting their resources to run a full node if they are unable to.

Anyhow, throughout my time here, I've seen this solution being proposed more than a dozen times. The reason why the UTXO commitment or blockchain truncating isn't viable right now is that the user has to trust that the commitment is accurate and isn't intentionally manipulated. I would think that this only serves to solve the problem with regards to the storage space, for which pruning is sufficient.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: ranochigo on September 14, 2021, 04:17:47 AM

It doesn't... Relative to the rest of the spam that the network has to deal with. UTXOs are always getting added and deleted so the growth shouldn't be that significant. If your logic is that each UTXO imposes a burden on the network, then each transaction imposes a much higher burden than that, for which there is zero compensation to the nodes. How do we go about solving that?

I get the feeling that your question is somewhat rhetorical in nature and that you don't really believe that anything needs to be "solved". But there are possible solutions to the blockchain size issue. I even thought of one myself recently. Actually 2 of them. I'll share one of them here. the other deserves a bigger platform like its own thread maybe!

Just take a snapshot of the utxo set after mining block #XYZ. The utxo set at that time will becomes the new genesis block. And that is all that would need to be saved. Rince and repeat every 10 years or so. Bitcoin purists and crypto historians can enjoy keeping the old blockchain and actually seeing how things got to the state they are in if they want to while the network goes on about its business in a more efficient manner.

Quote

Either you go with an account based system or you go without, there is no inbetween.

See my comment above.

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: Dabs on September 14, 2021, 08:27:41 AM

...
Again, Opendimes do not use P2PK. Not many wallets today use P2PK. If you have an old address, it's probably not P2PK, and those will always be spendable in the future if you still have the private keys.

It's the P2PK public keys that we're talking about. Not addresses beginning with 1 or 3 or bc1.
..

Agree with you 100%

Does not matter if it's P2PK public keys or a traditional (1... or 3... or bc1...) address as you said the coins should never be touched.
larry_vw_1955 wants to change that.
What happens in the future when someone else decides that the bc1... is bad and should be invalidated or some other crap.

-Dave

vapourminer

legendary

Activity: 4354

Merit: 3614

what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 14, 2021, 03:53:32 AM

Quote

Damn right I do. It's none of anyone's business if my wallets are lost or it's just my choice to not touch them.

The only problem with that unspendable utxos impose a burden on the bitcoin network (the rest of us). The only way to deal with that is by cleaning out the utxo set periodically.

Quote

I would argue that the nearly 400GB of block data would be a better point to argue from. Block data grows linearly while UTXO doesn't necessarily have the same growth.

yeah that really needs to be looked at because BTC. Let alone ten times that.

400 gb? geeze you should see my steam folders size.

i run a full unpruned node, gave it a 500 gb ssd, which will last until a 1tb ssd is the price of dirt..

anyway i like my old UTXOs thank you. and the network will still have them ready for me years from now. thats how bitcoin works.

Dabs

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 1912

The Concierge of Crypto

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 14, 2021, 03:53:32 AM

Satoshi being the genius that he was I wonder why he didn't come up with a way that miners would auto-consolidate utxos from the utxo set as part of their normal mining process. That way, each address would only have a single utxo associated with it. Under normal circumstances. Kind of like an account based system but not really.

He didn't have to. As indicated, hard drive space is always going up too. Satoshi said something to that effect, and also something about all block headers or transactions fitting in a small space.

As for Opendimes, I like the concept, it's essentially a cold wallet or one of those physical coins with private keys / more advanced paper wallet. Perhaps for trading purposes, something like Opendimes would do when you have 0.01 BTC in several and you hand it over to someone else when buying stuff.

If I ever got one of those, I would of course sweep them immediately to my own form of cold storage.

Again, Opendimes do not use P2PK. Not many wallets today use P2PK. If you have an old address, it's probably not P2PK, and those will always be spendable in the future if you still have the private keys.

It's the P2PK public keys that we're talking about. Not addresses beginning with 1 or 3 or bc1.

I have no issues if there is no consensus ever about these public keys and nothing is done about them. They are likely to remain unspent in the next several decades and no one today uses these types of keys. With version 22 of the Core wallet released, we should also start seeing new Taproot addresses soon, maybe.

Shymaa-Arafat

full member

Activity: 228

Merit: 156

If the principal of dropping UTXOS is there & allowed, why don't u drop holding 1 Satoshi or less than dust limit
& They're probably old anyway

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 13, 2021, 11:10:46 PM

Quote from: DaveF on September 13, 2021, 02:26:18 PM

It's just my opinion but, why should this be any different?

-Dave

You may not agree but it is different. Way different. Gold that you hold and pass down to generations doesn't impose any cost upon any type of infrastructure. And if it did, you would have to pay fees. Like for storing it or getting it appraised or recasting it into some other form. But if you just store it under your bed, you're not imposing any type of cost to anyone else.

On the other hand with bitcoin your utxos do cost the network storage costs. So that's the difference. They have to maintain your utxos in the utxo set until you decide to use them or someone decides to use them. So they have an ongoing cost for maintaining your bitcoin. You can't expect them to front that cost however minimal forever, right? No you can't That's why ever so often you need to do transactions and pay transaction fees.

Storage costs are always dropping.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/

Although that chart only goes to 2017 and I do know that with the current supply chain / semiconductor issues at the moment the price drops have shrunk the cost of storage in terms of running a node have really not changed by any large amount.

You don't need the newest & fastest PC to run a node. There seems to be a 'fixed bottom cost' of a running & working old used PC at around $50. And those are fine for running a node.
And as others have pointed out the UTXO storage vs the rest of the blockchain is not that large.

-Dave

Syke

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1193

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 14, 2021, 03:53:32 AM

The only problem with that unspendable utxos impose a burden on the bitcoin network (the rest of us). The only way to deal with that is by cleaning out the utxo set periodically.

Will you listen to Satoshi?

Quote from: satoshi

You should never delete a wallet.

Wallets/UTXOs *never* expire.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 14, 2021, 03:53:32 AM

Quote

Damn right I do. It's none of anyone's business if my wallets are lost or it's just my choice to not touch them.

The only problem with that unspendable utxos impose a burden on the bitcoin network (the rest of us). The only way to deal with that is by cleaning out the utxo set periodically.

It's not serious problem, UTXO grow rapidly in last few years, but AFAIK it doesn't have big impact on cost of running full node. Raspberry Pi still can run full node at ease.

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 14, 2021, 03:53:32 AM

Quote

I would argue that the nearly 400GB of block data would be a better point to argue from. Block data grows linearly while UTXO doesn't necessarily have the same growth.

yeah that really needs to be looked at because I have no interest in storing 400GB on a hard drive. Let alone ten times that.

Then you should use pruned mode on Bitcoin Core or just don't run full node.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 4418

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 14, 2021, 03:53:32 AM

The only problem with that unspendable utxos impose a burden on the bitcoin network (the rest of us). The only way to deal with that is by cleaning out the utxo set periodically.

It doesn't... Relative to the rest of the spam that the network has to deal with. UTXOs are always getting added and deleted so the growth shouldn't be that significant. If your logic is that each UTXO imposes a burden on the network, then each transaction imposes a much higher burden than that, for which there is zero compensation to the nodes. How do we go about solving that?

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 14, 2021, 03:53:32 AM

Satoshi being the genius that he was I wonder why he didn't come up with a way that miners would auto-consolidate utxos from the utxo set as part of their normal mining process. That way, each address would only have a single utxo associated with it. Under normal circumstances. Kind of like an account based system but not really.

Either you go with an account based system or you go without, there is no inbetween.

Ideally, each address should only have 1 UTXO, that is the intention of Satoshi, for privacy reasons. Wallets are always encouraging this behavior to their user to discourage address reuse, by the use of change address and a new address every transaction. No one really thought that UTXO set is really significant in size... Full (and unpruned nodes) aren't for everyone, so I don't think everyone have to run a full node, if they don't want to.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: ranochigo on September 14, 2021, 01:51:41 AM

UTXO is the factor that isn't really all that significant. The size fluctuates at about 4GB right now, and people are incentivized to try to have as little UTXO as possible because a bigger UTXO entails a greater transaction size to create and to spend.

Satoshi being the genius that he was I wonder why he didn't come up with a way that miners would auto-consolidate utxos from the utxo set as part of their normal mining process. That way, each address would only have a single utxo associated with it. Under normal circumstances. Kind of like an account based system but not really.

Syke

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1193

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 13, 2021, 11:10:46 PM

You can't expect them to front that cost however minimal forever, right?

Damn right I do. It's none of anyone's business if my wallets are lost or it's just my choice to not touch them.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 4418

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 13, 2021, 11:10:46 PM

On the other hand with bitcoin your utxos do cost the network storage costs. So that's the difference. They have to maintain your utxos in the utxo set until you decide to use them or someone decides to use them. So they have an ongoing cost for maintaining your bitcoin. You can't expect them to front that cost however minimal forever, right? No you can't That's why ever so often you need to do transactions and pay transaction fees.

Storage costs are quite minimal. None of the network nodes are ever compensated for storing the blockchain, we aren't a PoS coin.

UTXO is the factor that isn't really all that significant. The size fluctuates at about 4GB right now, and people are incentivized to try to have as little UTXO as possible because a bigger UTXO entails a greater transaction size to create and to spend. As opposed to the 4GB UTXO being an issue, I would argue that the nearly 400GB of block data would be a better point to argue from. Block data grows linearly while UTXO doesn't necessarily have the same growth.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: DaveF on September 13, 2021, 02:26:18 PM

It's just my opinion but, why should this be any different?

-Dave

You may not agree but it is different. Way different. Gold that you hold and pass down to generations doesn't impose any cost upon any type of infrastructure. And if it did, you would have to pay fees. Like for storing it or getting it appraised or recasting it into some other form. But if you just store it under your bed, you're not imposing any type of cost to anyone else.

On the other hand with bitcoin your utxos do cost the network storage costs. So that's the difference. They have to maintain your utxos in the utxo set until you decide to use them or someone decides to use them. So they have an ongoing cost for maintaining your bitcoin. You can't expect them to front that cost however minimal forever, right? No you can't That's why ever so often you need to do transactions and pay transaction fees.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: DaveF on September 13, 2021, 08:40:59 AM

I have a gold coin from about 1800 to 1805. It's been passed around my family for about 200+ years.

It's worth whatever a few grams of gold are worth today+ a bit. Might be worth a bit more due to it's age but since it's in such poor shape that last time we tried to get a value placed on it, the general consensus was yeah more then gold value less then 3x gold value so still well under $500

If I put BTC0.001 on an opendime or in any other physical collectable, why the hell do you think it's value should be taken from whoever it is passed down to through the years and given to others?

-Dave

I don't think I would take opendime or any physical collectible too seriously since that's not what bitcoin was designed for. Transactions need to occur on the blockchain to be recognized as valid by the network. We all know that. If someone wants to do transactins "offline" and not pay transaction fees and not have it recorded on the blockchain well I don't know what to tell you! Grin

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: Dabs on September 13, 2021, 10:40:06 AM

Quote from: DaveF on September 13, 2021, 08:40:59 AM

If I put BTC0.001 on an opendime or in any other physical collectable, why the hell do you think it's value should be taken from whoever it is passed down to through the years and given to others?

Opendimes don't use P2PK addresses (or they are not even addresses, just public keys) so that shouldn't be an issue. But Opendimes don't use Segwit either, I'd prefer it if they did or got updated.

"Redistribution" is out of the question. I think the intent of the OP and many others is to prevent P2PK coins from being spent at all.

ECC may be broken, but there are several phases of "brokeness" and I think if it's only broken where the hats still need several hours or days of computing to get one private key out of a single public key, (or several months), it's not that broken enough and most old coins ... we'll see it happening and can probably act on it, if needed.

But if ECC takes less than 10 minutes to crack a private key, then it is truly broken, and we'll probably see a whole bunch of other internet services and websites (and other financial institutions connected to the internet) fall first. (unless the bad guys are smart and decide to do small targetted attacks ...)

Perhaps not the best example on my part, but it still is the same in my mind.

If I take the gold coin or loaded opendime out of my pocket and leave it on a table where anyone can get to it and it gets stolen that's on me.

Since we do know that over time having the opendime in my pocket can lead to damage making it unusable and if I cary the gold coin in the same pocket with my keys the gold is slowling going to get worn off / scraped off and there will be less gold so the coin is worth less. That's on me too.

It's just my opinion but, why should this be any different?

-Dave

Dabs

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 1912

The Concierge of Crypto

Quote from: DaveF on September 13, 2021, 08:40:59 AM

If I put BTC0.001 on an opendime or in any other physical collectable, why the hell do you think it's value should be taken from whoever it is passed down to through the years and given to others?

Opendimes don't use P2PK addresses (or they are not even addresses, just public keys) so that shouldn't be an issue. But Opendimes don't use Segwit either, I'd prefer it if they did or got updated.

"Redistribution" is out of the question. I think the intent of the OP and many others is to prevent P2PK coins from being spent at all.

ECC may be broken, but there are several phases of "brokeness" and I think if it's only broken where the hats still need several hours or days of computing to get one private key out of a single public key, (or several months), it's not that broken enough and most old coins ... we'll see it happening and can probably act on it, if needed.

But if ECC takes less than 10 minutes to crack a private key, then it is truly broken, and we'll probably see a whole bunch of other internet services and websites (and other financial institutions connected to the internet) fall first. (unless the bad guys are smart and decide to do small targetted attacks ...)

DaveF

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6320

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on September 13, 2021, 07:14:33 AM

I'm not advocating they "vanish" just that they be redistributed to active bitcoin participants. That's all. If an address has no activity for a certain amount of time, it's pretty sure that it can't participate in bitcoin anymore. And that it won't be.

I have a gold coin from about 1800 to 1805. It's been passed around my family for about 200+ years.

It's worth whatever a few grams of gold are worth today+ a bit. Might be worth a bit more due to it's age but since it's in such poor shape that last time we tried to get a value placed on it, the general consensus was yeah more then gold value less then 3x gold value so still well under $500

If I put BTC0.001 on an opendime or in any other physical collectable, why the hell do you think it's value should be taken from whoever it is passed down to through the years and given to others?

-Dave

Topic: please delete - page 5. (Read 2165 times)