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-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1VtzxY-0005cD-2B
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:17:44 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.149.112 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.149.112; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail149112.authsmtp.co.uk;
Received: from outmail149112.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.149.112])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1VtzxW-0000iu-T7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:17:44 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt17.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id rBKDHamZ072225;
Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:17:36 GMT
Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id rBKDHWBY005551
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:17:34 GMT
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 08:17:31 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Message-ID: <20131220131731.GC21148@savin>
References: <52B3A1C8.5000005@monetize.io>
<op.w8do7rg9yldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
<52B42842.6000306@monetize.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aT9PWwzfKXlsBJM1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52B42842.6000306@monetize.io>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 174cc1de-6979-11e3-b802-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAIUHFAXAgsB AmUbWldeUVp7WmY7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq
WVdMSlVNFUsqc2d1 fnlsOxlycgBDeTBx ZkJmVz5aW0ApJkcp
F1NSHGoPeGZhPWMC AkhYdR5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhES
HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4hPwZ0 XwoFBTI0FElXDwwu
MxwrLEIdF08NP0l6 KUEsV1MIewMIBwBF dwAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org]
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1VtzxW-0000iu-T7
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP proposal: Authenticated prefix trees
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: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:17:44 -0000
--aT9PWwzfKXlsBJM1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 03:21:38AM -0800, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> Hi Jeremy, Let's give a preview of the application-oriented BIPs I
> mentioned:
>=20
> Stateless validation and mining involves prefixing transaction and
> block messages with proofs of their UTxO state changes. These are the
> "operational proofs" I describe in the draft, and they work on prefix
> trees whose root hashes committed to the coinbase in a soft-fork
> upgrade of the validation rules.
>=20
> "Ultimate blockchain compression" involves consensus over an address
> index, which can be queried over the p2p network by lightweight nodes.
> The structure of the index is an authenticated prefix tree, and the
> results of such a query is an an inclusion proof.
I've thought about this for awhile and come to the conclusion that UTXO
commitments are a really bad idea. I myself wanted to see them
implemented about a year ago for fidelity bonded banks, but I've changed
my mind and I hope you do too.
They force miners and every full node with SPV clients to store the
entire UTXO set in perpetuity. This is bad by itself, but then they make
it even worse by making Bitcoin really useful and convenient to use as a
decentralized database; UTXO commitments make it easy and convenient to
implement systems like Namecoin on top of Bitcoin, yet we don't have the
UTXO expiration that might make such uses reasonable. Right now the UTXO
set is reasonable small - ~300MB - but that can and will change if we
make it an attractive way to store data. UTXO commitments do exactly
that.
You're also *not* giving users what they actually want: the transactions
associated with their wallets. Even though Electrum could easily work
via a pure UTXO database they implemented transaction lookup instead;
Electrum servers cough up every transaction associated with a user's
wallet. If you're going to do that, it's just as easy to do per-block
lookup trees which don't force the UTXO set to be stored.
There's also a more subtle issue: the security model of UTXO commitments
sucks. It encourages wallets to essentially trust single confirmations
because it's unlikely that nodes will want to store the multiple copies
of the UTXO set required to provide proof of multiple confirmations.
Basically the issue is when you start your wallet you get a proof of
UTXO set for the most recent block; that's just one confirmation. To get
more confirmations you have to wait for subsequent blocks, checking the
set on each block. Per block indexes on the other hand naturally lead
wallets to count confirmations properly.
IMO you should take this technology to Namecoin instead. For them the
fast lookups are probably worth the trade-offs, and they expire domains
so the total set size doesn't grow unbounded.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000028fd077fb1e33e942e3e875aa29cec134fed89d650242c577
--aT9PWwzfKXlsBJM1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=+h8r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--aT9PWwzfKXlsBJM1--
|
