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
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E284B8C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:09:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com (mail-vk0-f41.google.com
[209.85.213.41])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69369203
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:09:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id r69so60039073vke.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 18:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=IY2qhtwZICZuFJSoCht3lYHpf8pJDh82YHoAaWUVuQs=;
b=D9LLTIX/t+p+B81dKgTJKV68XqiPVZF2CReZrkjx3jNOmEKFYd5Vi02j+9+/6Vr9s4
G4y6Y3WZLx9bStbynh7PPb2KgXyGyc5xDGNOU4xN77CW30PIA6iBGkmcYlvwjuh4Vu4O
Pa+7AXTLzELQ5TE/cy9uHPUhvVSN7avifIvvNY1TRdYGqkpnNOZmvXlJJi/lgf4yufPw
45cZ5ji+WcOEs/wO4kcqLHyJlz77lN91PNYOgN37KeDIPWHAtABoGusQbgfR08tcJJXl
0O7zWlHNoM7ZGAqjUrzJKNxXqVq8yU4eY5wtzMtn1i/E+i4Ac2QoyRl/z/n+hpvhrFxS
jknQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=IY2qhtwZICZuFJSoCht3lYHpf8pJDh82YHoAaWUVuQs=;
b=Ih95OAKqGzIKLYxs8i/uIlBrQRafCINOLSNNfKIF3Y+/ebaPdUKuHx1kjIbe2Q9wly
XPp+x1Cd4VC9+oGtrwkfSbYwfCR16dC1lOcZSzqhLmThyvwEbtBK2IsjpeOb7R+ZYVjQ
GnBiCd5VVtptUZu3V7I5tT6ySg1vkZNJomw9Pa+95FhZd8N31EQnXUVCbEiHBMuU6Y2B
Pz7+ak0Zag3En7+Vwd4oZE7ohVaj7o58Z0LwhQPdBcko4pKpGfDiWWGdaDkcNKkf5xyp
taLZB5DMazQdWf+OsdDJtTx6yyvIlGpSsR57YND7jYDnxiosQind5z7OyyeBOyjX/6Wl
Pxvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0Dx/W+yfZfDiNzpLk4DeBsepHX65SvsQ1ikHYXahsx+FkVH2ARg/jSv78vGwZ1U49c1NjtmmsWoQArmw==
X-Received: by 10.176.9.129 with SMTP id x1mr16072092uag.96.1491527366481;
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 18:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.152.203 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1491526132.723002.936945760.06A943C6@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1491516747.3791700.936828232.69F82904@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<CAAS2fgTEMCkDWdhCWt1EsUrnt3+Z_8m+Y1PTsff5Rc0CBnCKWQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1491526132.723002.936945760.06A943C6@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:09:26 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: rEz5_FCAObnQtVoeXm7SM8TSwYM
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR0t=QG6HfhF1MKW3k_4mjv7rjWE4T3-wdiL2fB6TVV4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tomas <tomas@tomasvdw.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 01:09:28 -0000
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Tomas <tomas@tomasvdw.nl> wrote:
> Bitcrust separates script validation (base load, when transaction come
> in) from order validation (peak load, when blocks come in).
How do you deal with validity rules changing based on block height?
> For script validation it would obviously need the ~2GB (or I think
> ~1.5GB) of outputs needed to validate these.
So it sounds like to work the software still needs an analog of a
(U)TXO database? I am confused by the earlier comments about thinking
the the resource consumption of the (U)TXO database is not a
consideration in your design.
> For order validation it
> needs ~200mb or the spent-index (for bit-lookups) and I would guess
> roughly ~500mb of the spent-tree (for scanning), though I don't think
> the 5.7GB full spend tree isn't worth pruning anytime soon.
If you get a transaction claiming to spend 0xDEADBEEFDEADBEEF, an
output that never existed how does your spent index reject this spend?
|
