1

I have an idea but I'm not sure if it makes sense or not.

I understand that CryptoNote uses addresses just twice, the first when a payment is received, and the next when a payment is made and that specific address is never used anymore.

Having that in mind, does it makes sense to think on a cryptocurrency with a limited number of blocks (let say one year of blocks), and if there are coins on an address that were not spend they are burned.

This way the disk usage of the full blockchain would be limited, and the usage of the coins would be enforced.

Does it makes sense? It is possible to implement something like that?

eloyesp
  • 111
  • 2

1 Answers1

1

Yes, that's possible to implement. Some blockchain bloat would be avoided. However:

  1. People will be upset, because they forgot/didn't realize their outputs would expire.

  2. People will remember, and will create a transaction to spend the output back to themselves before it expires. Seeing an output being used in a transaction soon prior to expiry is a good sign that the real owner is the one spending it. Therefore this is a possible privacy leak for anyone that had previously used that output as a decoy in their own transaction, because it could be successfully guessed that their transaction would now have one fewer possible source input.

knaccc
  • 8,468
  • 16
  • 22