path: root/1c/45d33b68f7ffef56ed65344fa556c663ceb126

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&#39;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">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targe=
t=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</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&#39;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 &amp; 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>
&gt; Hi Tomas,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I&#39;ve read it and think it is an excellent work, I&#39;d like to se=
e it<br>
&gt; integrated into bitcoin-core as a &#39;kernel module&#39;.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I see there are a lot of proof of concepts out there, IMO every one<br=
>
&gt; deserve a room in the bitcoin client as a selectable feature, to make =
the<br>
&gt; software more flexible and less dictatorial, an user could easily sele=
ct<br>
&gt; which features she wants to run.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Best regards,<br>
&gt; Marcos<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; I have been working on a bitcoin implementation that uses a diffe=
rent<br>
&gt; &gt; approach to indexing for verifying the order of transactions. Ins=
tead of<br>
&gt; &gt; using an index of unspent outputs, double spends are verified by =
using a<br>
&gt; &gt; spend-tree where spends are scanned against spent outputs instead=
 of<br>
&gt; &gt; unspent outputs.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; This allows for much better concurrency, as not only blocks, but =
also<br>
&gt; &gt; individual inputs can be verified fully in parallel.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; 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>
&gt; &gt; at <a href=3D"https://github.com/tomasvdw/bitcrust" rel=3D"norefe=
rrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/tomasvdw/<wbr>bitcrust</a><br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; I am sharing this not only to ask for your feedback, but also to =
call<br>
&gt; &gt; for a clear separation of protocol and implementations: As this<b=
r>
&gt; &gt; solution, reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, seems to hav=
e<br>
&gt; &gt; excellent performance characteristics (as shown in the test resul=
ts),<br>
&gt; &gt; updates to the protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not be =
worth<br>
&gt; &gt; considering *protocol improvements* and it might be best to addre=
ss<br>
&gt; &gt; these concerns as implementation details.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Kind regards,<br>
&gt; &gt; Tomas van der Wansem<br>
&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"mailto:tomas@bitcrust.org">tomas@bitcrust.org</a><br>
&gt; &gt; Bitcrust<br>
&gt; &gt; ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt; &gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-=
dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; &gt; <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>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<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--