If you read the post, then you understand that these outputs can never be realistically spent, since they would cost more in fees than the amount received.


Again, you do not understand that these transactions cannot be pruned. They must exist until the end of time, and yet the outputs cannot be spent.


No. The maturity can be measured objectively as the average fill rate of blocks (currently at roughly 25%).


The block subsidy is a temporary incentive to reward miners as the system bootstraps itself. It also exists to handle the problem of the initial distribution of coins (Ripple developers take note). The "startup capital" refers to the current condition of low fees and lack of competition for space in the block chain.


No, I'm saying that we don't need fees to go up sooner than necessary just because of one bad actor on the network.


If your proposed change was to go through, an attacker could cheaply flood the network by first creating a lot of dust, then sending it to himself, and finally creating many transactions that spend the dust as an input using the lower fee.


The transaction volume wouldn't be a problem in the future since we will regularly reach the 1mb limit. It's only a problem now because the network is young. But the transaction volume is only one part of the problem. The other part is the unspendable.

Every time SatoshIDICE sends a losing bet transaction, every current node and every new node must keep a copy of the transaction until the end of time.


Raising the max block size would make the problem worse, since even more SatoshiDICE transaction spam would be permanently etched into the block chain, with no possibility of getting spent.