Return-Path: <gsanders87@gmail.com> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D947BC7 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f178.google.com with SMTP id c45so19992615qtb.1 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 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> <f55cdaa01e5b37036a674df6eefbfebc.squirrel@mail.fairluck.net> <1491554876.1963053.937226528.7010832E@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:14:31 -0400 Message-ID: <CAB3F3DvG4NSBEk1vS-KWQjn3PXWOwF3xNP7_txUpwTdDMHettg@mail.gmail.com> To: Tomas <tomas@tomasvdw.nl>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 <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, 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 <div dir=3D"ltr">Interesting work.<div><br></div><div>I was wondering if yo= u could tell us what specs for the machine being used as preliminary benchm= ark is here:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitcrust.org/results">https://bitcrust= .org/results</a> ?</div><div><br></div><div>I'd be interested to also s= ee comparisons with 0.14 which has some improvements for script validation = with more cores.</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gm= ail_quote">On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Tomas via bitcoin-dev <span dir= =3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targe= t=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br= ><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1= px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thank you Marcos,<br> <br> Though written in Rust, bitcrust-db is definitely usable as pluggable<br> module as its interface will be roughly some queries, add_tx and<br> add_block with blobs and flags. (Bitcrust internally uses a<br> deserialize-only model, keeping references to the blobs with the parsed<br> data).<br> <br> However, from Core's side I believe network and storage are currently<b= r> rather tightly coupled, which will make this far from trivial.<br> <br> Regardless, I am also hoping (with funding & a team) to build a Bitcrus= t<br> networking component as well to bring a strong competitor to the market.<br= > <br> best,<br> Tomas<br> <div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br> <br> <br> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017, at 09:55, Marcos mayorga wrote:<br> > Hi Tomas,<br> ><br> > I've read it and think it is an excellent work, I'd like to se= e it<br> > integrated into bitcoin-core as a 'kernel module'.<br> ><br> > I see there are a lot of proof of concepts out there, IMO every one<br= > > deserve a room in the bitcoin client as a selectable feature, to make = the<br> > software more flexible and less dictatorial, an user could easily sele= ct<br> > which features she wants to run.<br> ><br> > Best regards,<br> > Marcos<br> ><br> > > I have been working on a bitcoin implementation that uses a diffe= rent<br> > > approach to indexing for verifying the order of transactions. Ins= tead of<br> > > using an index of unspent outputs, double spends are verified by = using a<br> > > spend-tree where spends are scanned against spent outputs instead= of<br> > > unspent outputs.<br> > ><br> > > This allows for much better concurrency, as not only blocks, but = also<br> > > individual inputs can be verified fully in parallel.<br> > ><br> > > I explain the approach at <a href=3D"https://bitcrust.org" rel=3D= "noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcrust.org</a>, source code is ava= ilable<br> > > at <a href=3D"https://github.com/tomasvdw/bitcrust" rel=3D"norefe= rrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/tomasvdw/<wbr>bitcrust</a><br> > ><br> > > I am sharing this not only to ask for your feedback, but also to = call<br> > > for a clear separation of protocol and implementations: As this<b= r> > > solution, reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, seems to hav= e<br> > > excellent performance characteristics (as shown in the test resul= ts),<br> > > updates to the protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not be = worth<br> > > considering *protocol improvements* and it might be best to addre= ss<br> > > these concerns as implementation details.<br> > ><br> > > Kind regards,<br> > > Tomas van der Wansem<br> > > <a href=3D"mailto:tomas@bitcrust.org">tomas@bitcrust.org</a><br> > > Bitcrust<br> > > ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> > > <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-= dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br> > > <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bit= coin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundatio= n.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br> > ><br> ><br> ><br> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.= <wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div> --001a11370ed4bf5bdb054c943fd1--