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
|
Return-Path: <bfd@cock.lu>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D0B98A1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:38:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from cock.li (cock.li [185.100.85.212])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7976890
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:38:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cock.lu; s=mail;
t=1491089926; bh=JoQIw8EEkzficH0WXY9SMASZJqWlH1aPbdOM3ABATvY=;
h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=cZ+wRMSWmeY6QztpCksdp2k0ft0CiYnDtDWLQloTT84PoLmUtcTgrdrTj74VRNA8F
m422j0jmYxNWA3makae8A5o4yFUe5yJ1Q/f4Odi+LbVuk3eBLwftFPt5rQfpbgT2NH
zaCyCijDmPheW62+NNWeJzGq4mTDmkA+8j/aNTNW9m8ElmtYqU1YFTaa+xi2k7Lxbv
YPW/h3UTeVG8zIzVAg739avkDtnUW2XkGa+b5KgnGyPSs1hNiOZ8W2gsYaBJxoqe1h
Pmb2SEBeFn5flvFtQJehRIlWn3/iAJmcCocJ1x2Y7wIUCyZNk0hUNzJj7prrwnI8Up
wpvp6yGsXdmqA==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 09:38:45 +1000
From: bfd@cock.lu
To: praxeology_guy <praxeology_guy@protonmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol
Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CEaHrHj5i8IQC75k1BY8e6a-4l-Wdq6vofQRYGQTtwx43uhcgzpg29Pbeh72d5LP5rQwxuCzevrGGnD2Bg8NKsDkUGCyzTwPczlbH2pOjgg=@protonmail.com>
References: <CEaHrHj5i8IQC75k1BY8e6a-4l-Wdq6vofQRYGQTtwx43uhcgzpg29Pbeh72d5LP5rQwxuCzevrGGnD2Bg8NKsDkUGCyzTwPczlbH2pOjgg=@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <d89b85f6e5dbeaefc6402596dfc3c843@cock.lu>
X-Sender: bfd@cock.lu
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.3
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 23:41:18 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Guessing the spentness status of the pruned
relatives
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, 01 Apr 2017 23:38:50 -0000
If a wallet is unaware of spends of its own coins (ie, transactions
were made it can't have known about), there's probably bigger problems
going on. You might enjoy the topic on this mailing list on committed
bloom filters however, as this solves a similar issue without needing
an ever-growing list of hundreds of millions of spent outputs.
On 2017-04-02 06:04, praxeology_guy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Bitcoin nodes could also keep a spentness status list, where each bit
> in the spentness status list corresponds to whether a txo in the MMR
> is spent. This could make it so that disconnected wallets didn't have
> to guess the pruned relative spentness status when it reconnects to
> the network... and help prevent DoS attacks.
|
