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
|
Return-Path: <tomas@tomasvdw.nl>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C39771F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 20:42:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
[66.111.4.25])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F00271A8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 20:42:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42])
by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168502080E;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:42:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213])
by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 08 Apr 2017 16:42:58 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=KUUfw7
6mHBvFcTzZqvGoSfoKchK6k/pA5ja4O2NDk5I=; b=Nkfeq9YfmiRlHoD2mDWRAH
NPDyjAHfPxRnrcMWLJhiFmYU0PZglThG+Duvmmd/W2UYI1N9Hov0d0OlHTzNCFAq
70R9Nc65jh/6ACXs55z/CTxD4wPMis2oVi7Ve8T3StuhFIz6NRL14kCfgy8yLj19
esKlwiUWf5QGff3Q6phtjB29CoIVW/m1HRUuyrVNLIDgQ5OacioDlUayKD2l83eG
HxAPCXWhTIwaiZODPCkObih8P1xZVbe4cI/kmUo1NqwiI/62Jmbh5ltu5vg83U+8
SvB0gQaT9Wm1Yvbn1fK13hNDxY4Y4009IddWZaq7zwwLlwi5zebna0/d/37grZtw
==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:UkvpWBK-OKjHB91BQ5HeonpNh172665cfcGPJ8u7Fc7Dg4HTxEd3pA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99)
id E9FF59ECBB; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:42:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1491684177.2464571.938617456.37E2534B@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Tomas <tomas@tomasvdw.nl>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-7c174d5d
In-Reply-To: <DF7A05F0-4EA7-4CB3-A9BE-491BDA209EF7@xbt.hk>
References: <1491516747.3791700.936828232.69F82904@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<CAAS2fgTJ8xOj8zCmBq1LN9OdMV-tDfSjVUPhLpO98cR1w-QAoA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+KqGko0cDY29bhznMxJJ7yAUTuB6GaDDNGBRwzssJUxM_53xQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1491599691.1245876.937920664.6EBA20DC@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<CAAS2fgTWyX5M-xcELC2vDvGfs01tbGYkpZJCSeNbvn_p4Ecjqg@mail.gmail.com>
<1491636528.2474173.938219072.54C44183@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<6F1E6FB6-1342-4BD6-BF83-A160C1A7CD34@xbt.hk>
<1491681378.2454247.938587616.7199D633@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<DF7A05F0-4EA7-4CB3-A9BE-491BDA209EF7@xbt.hk>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:57 +0200
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 21:37:04 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Using a storage engine without UTXO-index
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:42:59 -0000
> Please no conspiracy theory like stepping on someone=E2=80=99s toes. I be=
lieve
> it=E2=80=99s always nice to challenge the established model. However, as =
I=E2=80=99m
> trying to make some hardfork design, I intend to have a stricter UTXO
> growth limit. As you said "protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not
> be worth considering protocol improvements*, it sounds like UTXO growth
> limit wouldn=E2=80=99t be very helpful for your model, which I doubt.=20
Thank you. I realize that this particular phrase implies that in my
design, outputs are less costly then inputs, *in total resource costs*,
which I can not defend without completely ignoring base load script
verification. I rephrased it.
Tomas
|
