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
|
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 2A02BBC9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:18:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (mail-vk0-f43.google.com
[209.85.213.43])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 060D6212
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:18:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id s68so84079368vke.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 11:18:33 -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; bh=qshQ3nL2ROR+FP+zb3q5YXQFldm3+GGzXWQoZebSyXA=;
b=hdGl+BXVfxt9sme0Im9HYIw4XMdahvqY0ZGXSGlO+RTC2MebaEivqgFC0FZ9AiWmZt
u50+WecVkV9QjmAWNYlg4yVFsFTmrQ4VmZ0W10R/GBlE2HffmRMM1+Xds1fPKHSNcOmM
3VJXgMUVg9Ss0KkUqsR60ptmJnc+9D71zWqIuXle8Eka4xnYHPT8dDxg/IHTe3dMWtnr
McG4Ooldw4VB9gTMMchFBlV3axFuGC3Zy1WcfxTcnGopLI9q7G/VdFEzwuL/m4MVjR1s
l2VyjsLA1LwZb2pm0CzxjP6CfBq+FxBLuu2aiMceKHXuznKAYYe01wdlr4E1cmHtjMKz
sT5Q==
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;
bh=qshQ3nL2ROR+FP+zb3q5YXQFldm3+GGzXWQoZebSyXA=;
b=q/WzLAi5v7EBAgwaH4uPKUBflSI3DGIYXR6T0mBE8/14s6ME1DrkIrH42zVWRrQ/rY
jVbW+zRsy4iR2RODTQOoKwHsNSqPVwmz/xUdMvuB7BoF30lVpAJNO1Sjiod4iI61Xsvx
XXUymwtNVtHwC73ByXvxIIEmj/wYLKYCu8zDFmRMashjUzUjDeXxnIdOXsqGYRNQbgka
MLTDGPIitpsWGfolsk6M89TNs6ZB9W1lKTymU1s7znI2dtGnPg/Id112AF50d8d15Di7
yT2INGq9ajIvoWK9th+sna7KMnc9YA5LcQOHu5RvYmMq4ImMqm98dNd/b6sndBJmHwiU
PCAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3s2Uka97BK4nxy+IGj7OEhH7YXTkxYulIvE8wS1OQT9/fztOtSD4bD60IiN8siFTs+aMfdjDthugosrw==
X-Received: by 10.31.14.140 with SMTP id 134mr16389879vko.176.1491589113009;
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 11:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.152.203 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1491516747.3791700.936828232.69F82904@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1491516747.3791700.936828232.69F82904@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:18:32 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: me5C0euQeOsx9yiThi51WVyOdaI
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTJ8xOj8zCmBq1LN9OdMV-tDfSjVUPhLpO98cR1w-QAoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tomas <tomas@tomasvdw.nl>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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 18:18:35 -0000
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Tomas via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>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*
I'm still lost on this-- AFAICT your proposals long term resource
requirements are directly proportional to the amount of unspent output
data, which grows over time at some fraction of the total transaction
volume (plus the rate of spending which is more or less a constant).
Can you help out my understanding here?
|
