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
|
Return-Path: <mm@mm-studios.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6D9641C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:55:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from punisher (unknown [92.51.240.61])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7056B8D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:55:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=mail.fairluck.net)
by punisher with esmtp (Exim 4.88)
(envelope-from <mm@mm-studios.com>)
id 1cwOkG-00078l-FE; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 07:55:48 +0000
Received: from 213.1.222.238 (SquirrelMail authenticated user marcos)
by mail.fairluck.net with HTTP; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:55:48 -0000
Message-ID: <f55cdaa01e5b37036a674df6eefbfebc.squirrel@mail.fairluck.net>
In-Reply-To: <1491516747.3791700.936828232.69F82904@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1491516747.3791700.936828232.69F82904@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:55:48 -0000
From: "Marcos mayorga" <mm@mm-studios.com>
To: "Tomas" <tomas@tomasvdw.nl>,
"Bitcoin Protocol Discussion" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Reply-To: mm@mm-studios.com
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mm@mm-studios.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on punisher); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS, RDNS_NONE,
URIBL_RHS_DOB autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 11:13:34 +0000
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 07:55:51 -0000
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
>
|
