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
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D14F8F5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 22 May 2016 08:55:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149082.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149082.authsmtp.co.uk
[62.13.149.82])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B592E174
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 22 May 2016 08:55:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247])
by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u4M8ta2j005740;
Sun, 22 May 2016 09:55:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u4M8tYbB040336
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Sun, 22 May 2016 09:55:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16FBA400F9;
Sun, 22 May 2016 08:54:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 9F3C320579; Sun, 22 May 2016 04:55:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:55:33 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Message-ID: <20160522085533.GA10746@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <20160517132311.GA21656@fedora-21-dvm>
<68A4772D-D423-45F9-ADB7-95BEB3E66F43@xbt.hk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <68A4772D-D423-45F9-ADB7-95BEB3E66F43@xbt.hk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: f31206ef-1ffa-11e6-bcde-0015176ca198
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAAUFVQNAgsB AmAbW11eVVh7WmU7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUQEVCVho VGweVhlxdAMIfXl0 Ywg0XXFZXEIvI1t8
FBgFCGwHMGF9OjNL BV1YdwJRcQRMLU5E Y1gxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXDS1W QwcCZW8ucWFDJTMg Dz8YGiozHQUkXT8+
KxE4I1gAVHkQLkV6 FVw+HHYRLxIUARw8 V21ABCZIKlVJexoM
RShdWEsfDDhQRztH agAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making UTXO Set Growth Irrelevant With
Low-Latency Delayed TXO Commitments
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: Sun, 22 May 2016 08:55:39 -0000
--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:46:32AM +0200, Johnson Lau wrote:
> How is this compared to my earlier proposal: https://lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011952.html <https://lists.linuxf=
oundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011952.html> ?
>=20
> In my proposal, only the (pruned) UTXO set, and 32 bytes per archived blo=
ck, are required for mining. But it is probably more difficult for people t=
o spend an archived output. They need to know the status of other archived =
outputs from the same block. A full re-scan of the blockchain may be needed=
to generate the proof but this could be done by a third party archival nod=
e.
We're working along the same lines, but my proposal is much better fleshed =
out;
I think you'll find you missed a few details if you flesh out yours in more
detail. For instance, since your dormant UTXO list is indexed by UTXO
expiration order, it's not possible to do any kind of verification that the
contents of that commitment are correct without the global state of all UTXO
data - you have no ability to locally verify as nothing commits to the cont=
ents
of the UTXO set.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXQXQDAAoJEGOZARBE6K+y4/AH/3PwJINWeyMk36AsKlxNLgXK
2AiTh5EjYxgOicgpGi30fyR/TbzWltcOKwaVAxlPMiexmzuYV6smJ7yHyxdkW/Q5
pF3T5itshF1X87XMMF8sLvrBCu64uu0mYDwY9L75QU/SwXMwF7tv+YhCxzPtqIww
tsl5rjY3pFmw6uQudw1KgihbK7jD2zO6/UhBs72sYKvzEhBk6NxU1Ab8Hk0ua1Xt
IOI+CcvlPhhzyfkaSM8B1LjW+L1e6i3ZY4RRkNqriWkQaE/HKNqkHLK8sKTJpILH
L/lwq+uG9F+NHAbR3ZdX03f0+M3X8jSur4ZlwwU2ADvN7sE2J8mvVn1PF0TELfY=
=EkEa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO--
|
