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
|
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 <socrates1024@gmail.com>) id 1Sh3Bc-0005Uz-Pl
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:29:56 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=socrates1024@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Sh3BZ-0008Sb-R7
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:29:56 +0000
Received: by wgbfm10 with SMTP id fm10so6014832wgb.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.30.195 with SMTP id k45mr10615132wea.40.1340130585946;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: socrates1024@gmail.com
Received: by 10.217.2.207 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:29:45 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AI5yLl8pCB0UAjJSBFhkMsY85II
Message-ID: <CAF7tpEzi80MT5Ud46_BgvnLKXrcWhkNZNOiuY7NMnL-z0C0GqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Miller <amiller@cs.ucf.edu>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-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
(socrates1024[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (socrates1024[at]gmail.com)
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Sh3BZ-0008Sb-R7
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Ultimate Blockchain Compression w/
trust-free lite node
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, 19 Jun 2012 18:29:56 -0000
Alan Reiner wrote:
> A PATRICIA tree/trie would be ideal, in my mind, as it also has a
> completely deterministic structure, and is an order-of-magnitude more
> space-efficient. =A0Insert, delete and query times are still O(1).
> However, it is not a trivial implementation. =A0I have occasionally looke=
d
> for implementations, but not found any that were satisfactory.
PATRICIA Tries (aka Radix trees) have worst-case O(k), where k is the
number of bits in the key. Notice that since we would storing k-bit
hashes, the number of elements must be less than 2^k, or else by
birthday paradox we would have a hash collision! So O(log N) <=3D O(k).
You're right, though, that such a trie would have the property that
any two trees containing the same data (leaves) will be identical. I
can't think of any reason why this is useful, although I am hoping we
can figure out what is triggering your intuition to desire this! I am
indeed assuming that the tree will be incrementally constructed
according to the canonical (blockchain) ordering of transactions, and
that the balancing rules are agreed on as part of the protocol.
--=20
Andrew Miller
|
