Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D947BC7 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:14:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f178.google.com (mail-qt0-f178.google.com [209.85.216.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0891E3 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f178.google.com with SMTP id c45so19992615qtb.1 for ; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 07:14:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4XNvRAirRYqHOmLf8ykIWYc9J47WLucgTiuz4V14qUg=; b=EBOCIfc0EYwHM+kIUo8CkqtUDfZSD+0jBu41l8s1sRRqdJI+VvKYJ5W054pwN3XNFM mXrw5hy49rH6fZd87BuOegiVk8ZYalgxfH6MGjiEN7ssp0ysinEwbR9RGpRkR8uWDsyA IwhPrceLoGzkHc6sGXxnJZc7MkVuNHfrkkLAQtsMvgdWzaGadlfDcWUd5u2zQFyziMkH hwUbF5BJqAFMaUKYUdVUyf6b4o8GRthBvLXZwL+2/aOJX0SI2o+ihChVPLy8qnoiwh9w PWcEkqbVEglSVe0p3ySGWJ1FSAjFEKxs79er9uxQnbDIXN6rPf0cnGvGu6VxrgFTpAVX eXGg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4XNvRAirRYqHOmLf8ykIWYc9J47WLucgTiuz4V14qUg=; b=YKoElwKhtFZwy/mAig6Re6UBBQk4rzwpLQx/+8aDz/PEChOwCEc/btg2R1Ez/lfm25 kzXQTJ4RdLInFagBEPLVVF6aPwVAN5YbluyOjn97BZmYi3tDq/x8j10Hg3UADHhdnuG5 RZenO1gFmZHLdv3WzhRgk+4jeo9vW12LoSFyoM8rUDNs2IKL+9+HuaXj3trsEb/jAQM/ tXXXjrOpHTSrUjTuE82MSfIq5QuNXvQLxGS86A3w+g+eQ0yIZqGE6N2Nmf1zvaW6O+Nj UMfvLGcqImLv245t+4OGl+kMZZBQWyIwocYBANNoZVX3vvOBtcAp+EbY4V1YiSTnbXxY xliw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2wf+WlyX2SJJM+M8S0uhPSK8JaLJM92ALz4NuWYBoKba0/hFWoKVYOVbxc9L7+P85PNaMCc26BYVr/Uw== X-Received: by 10.200.42.213 with SMTP id c21mr45120539qta.257.1491574491927; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 07:14:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.137.180 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:14:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1491554876.1963053.937226528.7010832E@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1491516747.3791700.936828232.69F82904@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1491554876.1963053.937226528.7010832E@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Greg Sanders Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:14:31 -0400 Message-ID: To: Tomas , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11370ed4bf5bdb054c943fd1 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, URIBL_RHS_DOB autolearn=no 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:14:53 -0000 --001a11370ed4bf5bdb054c943fd1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Interesting work. I was wondering if you could tell us what specs for the machine being used as preliminary benchmark is here: https://bitcrust.org/results ? I'd be interested to also see comparisons with 0.14 which has some improvements for script validation with more cores. On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Tomas via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Thank you Marcos, > > Though written in Rust, bitcrust-db is definitely usable as pluggable > module as its interface will be roughly some queries, add_tx and > add_block with blobs and flags. (Bitcrust internally uses a > deserialize-only model, keeping references to the blobs with the parsed > data). > > However, from Core's side I believe network and storage are currently > rather tightly coupled, which will make this far from trivial. > > Regardless, I am also hoping (with funding & a team) to build a Bitcrust > networking component as well to bring a strong competitor to the market. > > best, > Tomas > > > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017, at 09:55, Marcos mayorga wrote: > > Hi Tomas, > > > > I've read it and think it is an excellent work, I'd like to see it > > integrated into bitcoin-core as a 'kernel module'. > > > > I see there are a lot of proof of concepts out there, IMO every one > > deserve a room in the bitcoin client as a selectable feature, to make the > > software more flexible and less dictatorial, an user could easily select > > which features she wants to run. > > > > Best regards, > > Marcos > > > > > I have been working on a bitcoin implementation that uses a different > > > approach to indexing for verifying the order of transactions. Instead > of > > > using an index of unspent outputs, double spends are verified by using > a > > > spend-tree where spends are scanned against spent outputs instead of > > > unspent outputs. > > > > > > This allows for much better concurrency, as not only blocks, but also > > > individual inputs can be verified fully in parallel. > > > > > > I explain the approach at https://bitcrust.org, source code is > available > > > at https://github.com/tomasvdw/bitcrust > > > > > > I am sharing this not only to ask for your feedback, but also to call > > > for a clear separation of protocol and implementations: As this > > > solution, reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, seems to have > > > excellent performance characteristics (as shown in the test results), > > > updates to the protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not be worth > > > considering *protocol improvements* and it might be best to address > > > these concerns as implementation details. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Tomas van der Wansem > > > tomas@bitcrust.org > > > Bitcrust > > > _______________________________________________ > > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a11370ed4bf5bdb054c943fd1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Interesting work.

I was wondering if yo= u could tell us what specs for the machine being used as preliminary benchm= ark is here:=C2=A0https://bitcrust= .org/results ?

I'd be interested to also s= ee comparisons with 0.14 which has some improvements for script validation = with more cores.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Tomas via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Thank you Marcos,

Though written in Rust, bitcrust-db is definitely usable as pluggable
module as its interface will be roughly some queries, add_tx and
add_block with blobs and flags. (Bitcrust internally uses a
deserialize-only model, keeping references to the blobs with the parsed
data).

However, from Core's side I believe network and storage are currently rather tightly coupled, which will make this far from trivial.

Regardless, I am also hoping (with funding & a team) to build a Bitcrus= t
networking component as well to bring a strong competitor to the market.
best,
Tomas



On Fri, Apr 7, 2017, at 09:55, Marcos mayorga wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
>
> I've read it and think it is an excellent work, I'd like to se= e it
> integrated into bitcoin-core as a 'kernel module'.
>
> I see there are a lot of proof of concepts out there, IMO every one > deserve a room in the bitcoin client as a selectable feature, to make = the
> software more flexible and less dictatorial, an user could easily sele= ct
> which features she wants to run.
>
> Best regards,
> Marcos
>
> > I have been working on a bitcoin implementation that uses a diffe= rent
> > approach to indexing for verifying the order of transactions. Ins= tead of
> > using an index of unspent outputs, double spends are verified by = using a
> > spend-tree where spends are scanned against spent outputs instead= of
> > unspent outputs.
> >
> > This allows for much better concurrency, as not only blocks, but = also
> > individual inputs can be verified fully in parallel.
> >
> > I explain the approach at https://bitcrust.org, source code is ava= ilable
> > at https://github.com/tomasvdw/bitcrust
> >
> > I am sharing this not only to ask for your feedback, but also to = call
> > for a clear separation of protocol and implementations: As this > > solution, reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, seems to hav= e
> > excellent performance characteristics (as shown in the test resul= ts),
> > updates to the protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not be = worth
> > considering *protocol improvements* and it might be best to addre= ss
> > these concerns as implementation details.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Tomas van der Wansem
> > tomas@bitcrust.org
> > Bitcrust
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-= dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundatio= n.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a11370ed4bf5bdb054c943fd1--