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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Sh2hs-0000Og-29
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:59:12 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qc0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-qc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Sh2hp-0007aa-Rk
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:59:12 +0000
Received: by qcso7 with SMTP id o7so3814088qcs.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.32.205 with SMTP id e13mr35608327qad.69.1340128744373;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.144.205 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FE0B7EB.6000100@gmail.com>
References: <CAF7tpEyEWCbcB+jSpWOMyeZUBjQ=FbVEC8kLt3j2Yzv3YJOgiA@mail.gmail.com>
<4FE0B7EB.6000100@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:59:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRFFtdsuaS+ZoFLYcnUxLBufA8aMV=_sHca5ZOi-3viTw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Sh2hp-0007aa-Rk
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Ultimate Blockchain Compression w/
trust-free lite node
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:59:12 -0000
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:
>=C2=A0One app developer updates their
> RB tree code which updated the RB-tree optimizations/rebalancing, and
> now a significant portion of the network can't agree on the correct
> root. =C2=A0Not only would that be disruptive, it would be a disaster to
> track down.
This is why good comprehensive tests and a well specified algorithim
are important. The tree update algorithm would be normative in that
scheme. Worrying that implementers might get it wrong would be like
worrying that they'd get SHA256 wrong.
> A PATRICIA tree/trie would be ideal, in my mind, as it also has a
> completely deterministic structure, and is an order-of-magnitude more
Provable libJudy trees. Oh boy.
|
