1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB0258D4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 20 May 2016 08:45:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149095.authsmtp.com (outmail149095.authsmtp.com
[62.13.149.95])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6967199
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 20 May 2016 08:45:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247])
by punt24.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u4K8jeIU082287;
Fri, 20 May 2016 09:45:40 +0100 (BST)
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 u4K8jbit025393
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Fri, 20 May 2016 09:45:38 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19B62400FA;
Fri, 20 May 2016 08:44:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 13AD620576; Fri, 20 May 2016 04:45:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 04:45:35 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Nick ODell <nickodell@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160520084535.GA5445@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <20160517132311.GA21656@fedora-21-dvm>
<CANN4kmcGE0_B7cDh1kpXzefuF-4y6z3=ZqmwcgQ0KEVhjA92WQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zhXaljGHf11kAtnf"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANN4kmcGE0_B7cDh1kpXzefuF-4y6z3=ZqmwcgQ0KEVhjA92WQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: 3a06e34a-1e67-11e6-bcde-0015176ca198
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAIUFVQNAgsB AmAbW11eVFh7Wms7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUQETCUZT X1oeUBxxfgYIfXx1 bQhhD3BdCUd+JFt8
F0hTCGwHMGF9OjNL BV1YdwJRcQRMLU5E Y1gxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXDS1W QwcCZW8ucWFDJTMg Dz8YGiozHQUkXT8+
KxE4I1gAVHkQLkV6 FVw+HHYRLxIUARw8 V21ABCZIKlVJexoM
RShdWEsfDDhQRztH agAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706
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-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making UTXO Set Growth Irrelevant With
Low-Latency Delayed TXO Commitments
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 08:45:43 -0000
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:23:28PM -0600, Nick ODell wrote:
> What if two people create transactions from oupoints within the same MMR
> tree tip, at the same time?
>=20
> For example, I create transaction A plus an MMR proof that MMR tip X will
> become Y.
>=20
> On the other side of the planet, someone else creates transaction B, plus
> an MMR proof that tip X will become Z.
>=20
> Can a miner who receives A and B put both into a block, without access to
> the outputs that were pruned?
The MMR proofs provided by transactions aren't proofs of *how* the MMR shou=
ld
be be changd; they're just proofs that the MMR is in a certain state right =
now.
You're situation is just an example of a double-spend, that miners have to
detect if they don't want to create invalid blocks. Specifically, if I
understand your example correctly, they'd be rejected by the STXO set.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXPs6sAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yxh0H/2SfXh5CHagAPhgZF2noA/5k
jgUuVBqWL7Gh3GqulRSSkvshZS+O7WAWhl7CsKubOkox19B2IKfADZxR2rHHkjYi
2slD/ijwKMZYPvr3JiyfbprF8vTqBj4k+LYfyS9i7pRMqewF/a8pHg80SUAmBfUZ
K3rX24Iiiv57UtIAdYZWsV02ez4PQzBTC2jK9Pk5PBX4y58ZZq1jihyrmaUXBG2u
2sd62L5BDg0+/GCk7DGPo74PW6lHizfyj4v77ONdxM1s8IXy0g9C1sUcWx/2c7Np
Al634ZIBc4X1EVDZCk+codZ0iHGVYM0neN5sZLbVP9a2gw1i/7re3mqNg152OQw=
=DdXP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf--
|
