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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <thomasv1@gmx.de>) id 1W0QCr-0003Np-0e
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 06:32:05 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmx.de
designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender)
client-ip=212.227.17.22; envelope-from=thomasv1@gmx.de;
helo=mout.gmx.net;
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W0QCp-0001LW-Mr
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 06:32:04 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.27] ([86.73.30.122]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with
ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LymjL-1VN2ZG0Cmd-0168OF for
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 07:31:57 +0100
Message-ID: <52CB9F5D.1040903@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 07:31:57 +0100
From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv1@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <52B3A1C8.5000005@monetize.io>
<52C9A7EE.2050904@gmx.de> <20140106181324.GB28880@petertodd.org>
<52CB4885.6090003@monetize.io>
In-Reply-To: <52CB4885.6090003@monetize.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:9XztzpSpO9x4FoZYJ5LMc6VwrwmdxYJKYQB9nd7OU7Zn6v1IocP
/FzdzXpr1NLEqvnF2AORjEuJhvLMBh8SoaiYaFmbfKXn6/qoA0+MOImQ+hmhkDrg9FGkK5I
ePlXWXvf2foJRkpEzzEI1FdEf1heBd6qBEWG/qXGPmjQA27e8m0L6Ers9lxHeNgiUrRqnEE
V8mmx8Va8reXcO6v9+mSg==
X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [212.227.17.22 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(thomasv1[at]gmx.de)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (thomasv1[at]gmx.de)
X-Headers-End: 1W0QCp-0001LW-Mr
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP proposal: Authenticated prefix trees
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 06:32:05 -0000
Le 07/01/2014 01:21, Mark Friedenbach a écrit :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/06/2014 10:13 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 07:43:58PM +0100, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
>>> I have written a Python-levelDB implementation of this UTXO
>>> hashtree, which is currently being tested, and will be added to
>>> Electrum servers.
>> Along the lines of my recent post on blockchain data:
>>
>> Is it going to be possible to do partial prefix queries on that
>> tree?
> There's really two tree structures being talked about here. Correct me
> if I'm wrong Thomas, but last time I looked at your code it was still
> implementing a 256-way PATRICIA trie, correct? This structure lends
> itself to indexing either scriptPubKey or H(scriptPubKey) with
> approximately the same performance characteristics, and in the
> "Ultimate blockchain compression" thread there is much debate about
> which to use.
You are right. The 256-way branching follows from the fact that
the tree was implemented using a key-value database operating
with byte strings (leveldb). With this implementation constraint,
a different branching would probably be possible but wasteful.
My recent code creates one leaf per unspent, and uses 56-byte
keys built as:
H(scriptPubKey) + txid + txpos
(This is not pushed yet, it needs cleanup. Previous code created one
leaf per address)
Partial prefix queries are possible with database iterators.
> In the process of experimentation I've since moved from a 256-way
> PATRICIA trie to a bitwise, non-level-compressed trie structure - what
> I call proof-updatable trees in the BIP. These have the advantage of
> allowing stateless application of one proof to another, and as
> consequence enable mining & mempool operations without access to the
> UTXO set, so long as proofs are initially provided in the transaction
> & block wire format.
I see the advantage of doing that, but this looks really far-fetched..
My understanding is that it would require a complete change in the
way clients and miners work. Could such a change be brought iteratively?
|
