Ghost UTXOs: Satoshi's Legacy or a Threat to Bitcoin?

[pancelot]

UTXOs continue to grow over time, some even remaining untouched for years. If one day these "dead UTXOs" become a burden on the network, might the Bitcoin protocol need its own mechanism to delete or even destroy old UTXOs? Or could the existence of these "ghost UTXOs" hold the key to creating a new kind of privacy, or perhaps even a hidden signal from Satoshi himself in the future?

[pooya87]

If anything in Bitcoin protocol becomes truly problematic then there is a chance that the protocol can change to address that. But that is a big if. In case of UTXOs they are unlikely to become a big enough burden for us to seek any solution for them since the hardware is improving as time goes on. So storing and accessing these UTXOs are actually getting easier.

For example when the concept for SSDs came out they were like 20 MB in size but today they go as high as 100 TB and their price is also going down.

I have no idea what you mean in your second  question though.

[Ambatman]

If one day these "dead UTXOs" become a burden on the network, might the Bitcoin protocol need its own mechanism to delete or even destroy old UTXOs?

This goes against Bitcoin ethos on immutability and property right hence the major pullback on the quantum resistant proposal.
Destruction shouldn't be the first option, they can find ways to reduce the size impact.

UTXOs continue to grow over time, some even remaining untouched for years.

The growing size is something that we have to face in the future and ordinals had a hand in pushing it
But Node pruning which reduces blockchain storage though not UTXO set size can help mitigate the increase in size downloaded by full nodes.

Not to mention technological development isn't stagnant. Having a Gig or two was impressive some years ago but now they can barely do shit
And their cost falls as better and higher ones are created.

Or could the existence of these "ghost UTXOs" hold the key to creating a new kind of privacy

They could but I believe Taproot are more practical.

[pancelot]

If anything in Bitcoin protocol becomes truly problematic then there is a chance that the protocol can change to address that. But that is a big if. In case of UTXOs they are unlikely to become a big enough burden for us to seek any solution for them since the hardware is improving as time goes on. So storing and accessing these UTXOs are actually getting easier.

For example when the concept for SSDs came out they were like 20 MB in size but today they go as high as 100 TB and their price is also going down.

I have no idea what you mean in your second  question though.

Is the existence of UTXO really part of Satoshi's plan for developing Bitcoin for the future? That's what I mean.

[Cookdata]

UTXOs continue to grow over time, some even remaining untouched for years. If one day these "dead UTXOs" become a burden on the network, might the Bitcoin protocol need its own mechanism to delete or even destroy old UTXOs? Or could the existence of these "ghost UTXOs" hold the key to creating a new kind of privacy, or perhaps even a hidden signal from Satoshi himself in the future?

There is nothing like dead UTXOs. Just because the owners refused to send their Bitcoin from a wallet to another doesn't mean the the wallet is lost or they don't have the means to spend the UTXOs. Last week, according to Akrahm, a dormant wallet that was opened in 2014 moved the Bitcoin to another wallet that caused the FUD in the market.

There was another wallet that moved Bitcoin that was mine in 2010, this wallet has been dormant for 14 years and the owner decided to move it. The Bitcoin was mine when it was trading at $0.05

https://x.com/lookonchain/status/1806155380172722295?s=46, This was before Satoshi disappear.

Just because they are not used doesn't mean they are forgetten.

[Stalker22]

~

what exactly do you mean by "dead UTXOs"?  Are you referring to unspent transaction outputs from lost wallets, or simply those that have remained unspent for a long time?

There is no way to conclusively determine if a UTXO is "dead" (i.e., its private key is lost).  A UTXO that hasnt moved in ten years, or more, could simply belong to a long-term holder, or even Satoshi himself. The network cannot and should not make that judgment.

[₿itcoin]

That ghost UTXOs cleanup concept is more intelligent than the majority of shitcoin hits, bro .  you know Dust Expiry is a Bitcoin softfork proposal that would eliminate outdated, dust sized UTXOs, it is more like spam cleanup than protocol theft imo.  It would only permit nodes to forget entries while users could still legitimately claim them by presenting a basic proof of existence, it would not confiscate funds..

If you think that hidden UTXOs are Satoshi signals or mystery privacy tools, just lol .. that sounds more hip than it actually is.  UTXOs are merely leftover outputs, they are dusty satoshis, nothing magical.  If you ask me which play is superior?  i will say accept cleanup suggestions while wallets keep the chain small and easy to use by optimising user experience through consolidation & privacy conscious management.

[ABCbits]

UTXOs continue to grow over time, some even remaining untouched for years.

UTXO growth is expected, as more people own Bitcoin and make transaction. Although past Ordinal hype caused massive UTXO growth, which quickly abondened where owner of those don't even bother perform consolidation.

If one day these "dead UTXOs" become a burden on the network, might the Bitcoin protocol need its own mechanism to delete or even destroy old UTXOs?

It should never happen. Delete/destroy UTXO means someone's Bitcoin cannot be spent/moved, which is no different from deleting/freezing Bitcoin.

Or could the existence of these "ghost UTXOs" hold the key to creating a new kind of privacy, or perhaps even a hidden signal from Satoshi himself in the future?

This question doesn't make sense to me, i don't see how UTXO that remains unspent for many years affect privacy or become signal. You'll need to elaborate.

[Pablo-wood]

UTXOs continue to grow over time, some even remaining untouched for years. If one day these "dead UTXOs" become a burden on the network,

I just feel if left unchecked could strain resources. A possible network bloat such that has the Blockchain continues to grow, each node will have no choice but to store every UTXO which isn't cost effective. The burden of storing and managing this UTXOs eventually falls on every node.

might the Bitcoin protocol need its own mechanism to delete or even destroy old UTXOs? Or could the existence of these "ghost UTXOs" hold the key to creating a new kind of privacy, or perhaps even a hidden signal from Satoshi himself in the future?

Bitcoin design doesn't currently allow for deletion of UTXOs. For the sake of the network integrity old UXTO might be part of the Blockchain forever. These dormant UXTOs could provide a layer of obfuscation. Making it harder to trace the flow of funds.

[edroi]

UTXOs continue to grow over time, some even remaining untouched for years. If one day these "dead UTXOs" become a burden on the network, might the Bitcoin protocol need its own mechanism to delete or even destroy old UTXOs? Or could the existence of these "ghost UTXOs" hold the key to creating a new kind of privacy, or perhaps even a hidden signal from Satoshi himself in the future?

that’s interesting way to look at it.. i think ( ghost utxos ) are less of a threat and more of a reminder of bitcoins nature.. they show us that value can sit quietly for years.. almost like digital fossils in the chain.. instead of deleting them maybe they serve a purpose like proof that not all money has to move to have meaning.. whether it’s lost coins, forgotten wallets or someone deliberately holding, these utxos add mystery and scarcity at the same time.. if anything, they make bitcoin more like a living history book than a system that needs cleaning