Topic: please delete - page 7. (Read 2135 times)

I've probably misunderstood what you said, but:  If you don't keep the spent transaction outputs, but rather dump them later instead, how will you maintain the chain? The PoW was done with these included.

I think stealing non-moved coins is really dumb and not needed, and nobody will agree to this idea.

However, I think it might be interesting to explore the idea of 'empty blocks' in the sense that if all utxos are spent, you don't have to keep them in the Blockchain.

But in general, all this topic is really 'trying to find an idea to a nonexistent problem'. Recently, someone brought to my attention how many people now have a 256GB phone. While the Blockchain is sitting at a bit over 300 gigs. The 'flippening' () is probably happening very soon where it will be normal to have enough space on your mobile phone to store the entire Bitcoin blockchain if you wanted. At that point, it will be an absolute no brainer to just run a full node on your multi-TB all-SSD PC or laptop at home.

As long as the Blockchain grows slower than storage for a given price (which it is) we don't have an issue to try to solve here.

Edit: I just realized this topic is 6 years old. I respect OP for thinking about blockchain size issues and potential solutions in a time where it wasn't yet clear that fast storage will be so cheap so soon. Prices fell from ~35ct/GB to ~8ct/GB. To get a 1TB SSD in 2015 cost ~350 bucks vs. 80 bucks now.

Actually, quite the opposite. Everyone's stealing the coins as they become slightly richer due to this feature. They become richer due to the user's inability to spend their funds.

I think that you should think of Bitcoin as cash; it has been told hundreds of times. What would happen if you left your cash or gold buried in the ground for over two decades? Would you be unable of spending them?

I think that you're trying to find a solution to a problem (Satoshi's rewarded addresses whose public key is exposed) and you introduce others by doing so. Of course, consensus is required to enable this. What I'm telling you is that the users will never come in an agreement for it due to its utopianism.

Not an altcoin. Not a steal-a-coin crypto. A can-not-spend-very-old-coin bitcoin for really very old addresses which are not double hash protected. No one is stealing the coins, just marking them as unspendable after they have not been spent 10 years from now (so, some really old coins not moved in 20 years). It was just a suggestion and I have no problem with no one doing anything about them as the coins are unlikely to be spent at all if no one has moved them in the past 10, 11, or 12 years.

This would of course, require consensus and that means everyone agrees to it.


The longest time frame I've seen for fiat banks is 15 years of inactivity, they then mark those as dormant and can "escheat" the money to the state or central bank or whatever. There are procedures for claiming that money. Imagine your great grandfather opened an account in your name when you were a child, put in a few thousand dollars, and you never knew about it until today, some 50 years later.



There are some early addresses older than the most recent legacy addresses that were not protected behind a hash of a hash, so those coins can be stolen if enough computing power is put to them. The later legacy addresses are protected by a hash of a hash, so the public keys are unknown until they are spent, for those addresses which are re-used, which is not recommended these days.

I think the earliest addresses have their public keys known? Kindly correct me if I am mistaken. My own first addresses were those hash behind a hash types.


Every year or two?  Why would that be a good practice?  Sounds like a bad idea to me.