Quote from: bffranca on May 09, 2015, 05:25:49 PM

The advantage for me of separating the unspent outputs from the transactions is that the transactions are much larger in size (in this scheme) than the unspent outputs, so there is a considerable saving.

Well there are no unspent outputs in the MBC scheme which is why I think your scheme is closer to Bitcoin. If I were to send 1000 micro-transactions to the same address using Cryptonite the account tree would only grow larger on the first transaction, but if the address was already in the account tree before I sent the first tx then the tree wouldn't grow at all. In your scheme the tree would grow for each of those 1000 transactions because you're recording unspent outputs rather than a balance sheet like Cryptonite. And that is the main reason why Bitcoin will never achieve the level of scalability that Cryptonite has, despite what some other people might claim.

Quote from: bffranca on May 09, 2015, 05:25:49 PM

I remember that you wanted to have maintenance fees in Cryptonite to control dust but you were having problems with the actual mechanism of deciding the value, but having the stakeholders voting on it seems to be a good solution.

Yeah I've thought about it but it's obviously not going to be the easiest thing in the world. It's also very hard to decide when and how the maintenance fees should be subtracted from address balances even if you know what the maintenance fee should be. There always seem to be serious difficulties involved regardless of how the problem is approached.