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
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
|
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 <kungfoobar@gmail.com>) id 1SgOFW-0003Dx-93
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:47:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.210.47; envelope-from=kungfoobar@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pz0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-pz0-f47.google.com ([209.85.210.47])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SgOFV-0002T7-8J
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:47:14 +0000
Received: by dalh21 with SMTP id h21so5949130dal.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 17 Jun 2012 15:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.233.201 with SMTP id ty9mr45080009pbc.34.1339973227275;
Sun, 17 Jun 2012 15:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.35.42 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 15:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120617190511.GA26047@savin>
References: <4FDE2460.5080301@gmail.com> <20120617190511.GA26047@savin>
From: Alberto Torres <kungfoobar@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:46:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE98tO2PcxKdz670ptHB=3Pc9JvV_+Wjdt1117M4SA2hANKH+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/)
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
(kungfoobar[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
0.8 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1SgOFV-0002T7-8J
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Ultimate Blockchain Compression w/
trust-free lite nodes
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: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:47:14 -0000
Hi,
I did describe a very similar thing back in January (also illustrated,
and, if I'm not mistaken, more simple and efficient to recalculate),
and I wanted to do a prototype, but I have been very busy with other
projects since then.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:DiThi/MTUT
I just saw Gavin left a comment in the talk page, I'm sorry I haven't
seen it earlier.
I think armory is the perfect client to implement such an idea. I sort
of waited it to be able to run in my laptop with 2 GB of RAM before
being sucked into other projects. I even lost track of its
development.
I hope this gets developed. I will be able to help after summer if
this is still not done.
DiThi
P.S: Sorry Peter, I've sent you the message privately by mistake.
Also, I don't quite understand your concern of "unbalancing" the tree.
2012/6/17 Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 02:39:28PM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> With the flurry of discussion about blockchain compression, I
>> thought it was time to put forward my final, most-advanced idea,
>> into a single, well-thought-out, *illustrated*, forum post.
>> Please check it out: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D88208.0
>>
>> This is a huge undertaking, but it has some pretty huge benefits.
>> And it's actually feasible because it can be implemented without
>> disrupting the main network. =A0I'm sure there's lots of issues with
>> it, but I'm putting it out there to see how it might be improved and
>> actually executed.
>>
>> ----
>> *Summary:
>>
>> */Use a special tree data structure to organize all unspent-TxOuts
>> on the network, and use the root of this tree to communicate its
>> "signature" between nodes. =A0The leaves of this tree actually
>> correspond to addresses/scripts, and the data at the leaf is
>> actually a root of the unspent-TxOut list for that address/script.
>> To maintain security of the tree signatures, it will be included in
>> the header of an alternate blockchain, which will be secured by
>> merged mining.
>>
>> This provides the same compression as the simpler unspent-TxOut
>> merkle tree, but also gives nodes a way to download just the
>> unspent-TxOut list for each address in their wallet, and verify that
>> list directly against the blockheaders. =A0Therefore, even lightweight
>> nodes can get full address information, from any untrusted peer, and
>> with only a tiny amount of downloaded data (a few kB). /*
>
> How are you going to prevent people from delibrately unbalancing the
> tree with addresses with chosen hashes?
>
> One idea that comes to mind, which unfortunately would make for a
> pseudo-network rule, is to simply say that any *new* address whose hash
> happens to be deeper in the tree than, say, 10*log(n), indicating it was
> probably chosen to be unbalanced, gets discarded. The "new address" part
> of the rule would be required, or else you could use the rule to get
> other people's addresses discarded.
>
> Having said that, such a rule just means that anyone playing games will
> find they can't spend *their* money, and only with pruning clients.
> Unrelated people will not be effected. The coins can also always be
> spent with a non-pruning client to an acceptable address, which can
> later re-spend on a pruning client.
>
>
> It also comes to mind is that with the popularity of firstbits it may be
> a good idea to use a comparison function that works last bit first...
>
>
> It's merkles all the way down...
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
