Author: Ross Nicoll 2015-05-09 19:43:33
Published on: 2015-05-09T19:43:33+00:00
In a Bitcoin-development mailing list, Jim Phillips suggested that unless the miner determines that the reduction in UTXO storage requirements is worth the lower fee, there's no protocol level enforcement of a fee. He also mentioned that an economical reason to keep the UTXO set small exists as the smaller it is, the easier it is for the individual to run a full node, and the faster Bitcoin will spread to the masses, making it more valuable. Ross responded to this comment by suggesting that potential fee subsidies for cleaning up UTXO and/or penalties for creating more UTXO than burned are worth considering. Gavin Andresen's post indicates that UTXO cost is far higher than block storage, so charging differently for the in/out mismatches should make good economic sense. It's a complex trade-off, which is hard to optimize for all use cases.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T20:30:47.657057+00:00