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
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53E4593E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 19:23:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sender-of-o52.zoho.com (sender-of-o52.zoho.com [135.84.80.217])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB3A31C7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 19:23:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.8.8.2] (119246245241.ctinets.com [119.246.245.241]) by
mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1491679413823781.3189858066962;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 12:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <1491636528.2474173.938219072.54C44183@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 03:23:29 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6F1E6FB6-1342-4BD6-BF83-A160C1A7CD34@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>
To: Tomas <tomas@tomasvdw.nl>,
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-ZohoMailClient: External
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.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 19:23:45 -0000
> On 8 Apr 2017, at 15:28, Tomas via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>=20
>=20
> I think you are being a bit harsh here . I am also clearly explaining
> the difference only applies to peak load, and just making a =
suggestion.
> I simply want to stress the importance of protocol / implementation
> separation as even though you are correct UTXO data is always a =
resource
> cost for script validation (as I also state), the ratio of different
> costs are not necessarily *identical* across implementation.=20
>=20
> Note that the converse also holds: In bitcrust, if the last few blocks
> contain many inputs, the peak load verification for this block is
> slower. This is not the case in Core.
>=20
> Tomas
>=20
I don=E2=80=99t fully understand your storage engine. So the following =
deduction is just based on common sense.
a) It is possible to make unlimited number of 1-in-100-out txs
b) The maximum number of 100-in-1-out txs is limited by the number of =
previous 1-in-100-out txs
c) Since bitcrust performs not good with 100-in-1-out txs, for anti-DoS =
purpose you should limit the number of previous 1-in-100-out txs.=20
d) Limit 1-in-100-out txs =3D=3D Limit UTXO growth
I=E2=80=99m not surprised that you find an model more efficient than =
Core. But I don=E2=80=99t believe one could find a model that doesn=E2=80=99=
t become more efficient with UTXO growth limitation.
Maybe you could try an experiment with regtest? Make a lot 1-in-100-out =
txs with many blocks, then spend all the UTXOs with 100-in-1-out txs. =
Compare the performance of bitcrust with core. Then repeat with =
1-in-1-out chained txs (so the UTXO set is always almost empty)
One more question: what is the absolute minimum disk and memory usage in =
bitcrust, compared with the pruning mode in Core?=
|
