Timeline for Why do outputs need to be spent entirely?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2018 at 13:09 | comment | added | Ini | I mean your answer is good, but I guess there is no real answer to this question, because we already have two approaches (UTXO and the account-model) and both seem to work. Maybe you can diviate slightly from UTXO and create another approach etc.. There are pros and cons to each method and Satoshi chose the UTXO design. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 18:46 | history | edited | Murch♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 239 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2018 at 18:40 | comment | added | Murch♦ | @Invader: Thank you for your feedback. I've tried to improve my answer. What do you think? | |
| May 1, 2018 at 18:36 | history | edited | Murch♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 422 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2018 at 11:35 | comment | added | Ini | The question is about the WHY. So the reason why it is designed that way. I guess to answer such a question somebody would have to point out pros and cons of different approaches. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 3:06 | comment | added | Murch♦ | @Invader: I don't understand why you think that. Since Bitcoin balances are stored in Unspent Transaction Outputs, and those can only be created and destroyed, but not changed, you can only spend UTXO in their entirety. I believe that my answer explains that (although I could probably explain it better by now). | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 14:01 | comment | added | Ini | That does not answer the question | |
| Jan 20, 2014 at 16:06 | history | undeleted | Murch♦ | ||
| Jan 20, 2014 at 16:05 | history | deleted | Murch♦ | via Vote | |
| Jan 20, 2014 at 16:00 | history | answered | Murch♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |