Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 592C1AB9 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:31:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148154.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail148154.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.148.154]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770EE17F for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:31:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232]) by punt24.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v1NIVhux066909; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:31:43 GMT Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v1NIVfte094259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:31:42 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B3D240576; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:31:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4674E20245; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:31:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:31:40 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: "G. Andrew Stone" Message-ID: <20170223183140.GA6393@savin.petertodd.org> References: <20170223011506.GC905@savin.petertodd.org> <20170223181929.GA6268@savin.petertodd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: 52c1667a-f9f6-11e6-829f-00151795d556 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdAEUHlAWAgsB AmEbWlxeU1x7XWE7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUgQWeHpX QkseWx1wcgwIfH1y YwhnXCNaWkJ9JFsr SxhSCGwHMGF9YGIW Bl1YdwJRcQRDe0tA b1YxNiYHcQ5VPz4z GA41ejw8IwAXAWx/ Tx0RIEhaZGMxVhIx SREEHCkuGktt X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Better MMR Definition X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:31:46 -0000 --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 01:28:18PM -0500, G. Andrew Stone wrote: > Can an insertion ordered MMR allow an efficient nonexistence proof? Why do you want a non-existance proof? It supports an efficient *spentness* proof, which is sufficient for what we need in Bitcoin, and much more scalable. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYryqIAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7x1sH/Ag4U8I6Dnr40qBeytx8N0z2 pnEF97yuH6Pi0W+8KGBVuywmhFXwvXJg0S/z7U8ZvX3b74QhXeOMYMfDWbViPvDW pwlxak9ng2TR93+FQtM5Ueso+LSRiWA/7Fz4PJYs01r4n3gy6RTeLnGQen5bIZT0 TLLGEsbD1HMPP5dyalZXnpzSqcj3YdcMmieGTd5XjJoggnUTEY2uGMEZR61LnZ2X NpvB5PzDxLcrb588PBizWIk1+4sabBk1SEr4ictzV+B/2LLSYw74lSRYJXW+FOop mfJi4VgHg7ocjSKkQNqG73UAHm8m+V3c9FYwJ2rPrg6a4LkVLq2wLdWXMO55tNQ= =TFW6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm--