MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20130410030831.GA12447@savin>
References: <CAAS2fgSkiqfhJxHJNw8i8G5yd1XY6tUTDynQ+AekbwmHP_jZmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130410030301.GA9921@savin> <20130410030831.GA12447@savin>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:58:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC1+kJOM=QrK4w5O-sqH=CV30v7KCxBZPBS9c+p12XK5UsJ2iw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development]
	=?windows-1252?q?To_prevent_arbitrary_data_?=
	=?windows-1252?q?storage_in_txouts_=97_The_Ultimate_Solution?=
Precedence: list

On 4/10/13, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> Oh, and while we're at it, long-term (hard-fork) it'd be good to change
> the tx hash algorithm to extend the merkle tree into the txouts/txins
> itself, which means that to prove a given txout exists you only need to
> provide it, rather than the full tx.
>
> Currently pruning can't prune a whole tx until every output is spent.
> Make that change and we can prune tx's bit by bit, and still be able to
> serve nodes requesting proof of their UTXO without making life difficult
> for anyone trying to spent old UTXO's. The idea is also part of UTXO
> proof stuff anyway.

I thought about this before, I like the idea very much.
Would such a fork be controversial for anyone?
Would anyone oppose to this for some reason I'm missing?

--=20
Jorge Tim=F3n

http://freico.in/