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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EB28305
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 15:51:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com
[209.85.212.175])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69BE1A7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 15:51:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wiwl6 with SMTP id l6so80079869wiw.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 08:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=XUPfS9Rh7xnj1t8xtwkiVQ0zQAfR/XkQwHsWyK7AM6U=;
b=UZ4huqZDs8IatkWbLoWjbP6j0fIfNK7m1uK7TUEdBPgDXMDTpDqa7hL03n2dWmQmGQ
Q5Lq3IR4jv0LVAi60etnj2BRsNpl9TrGBQWkXRtlO+4EHdMgJWZCbqb8/XBFYqRT7eC+
f+i6i+XnF2HSkAC9H27p5prYFBWAJVDmXeCO2e/jvQzTDqCfLuSzIBethoUCk6KBawho
JZeXmgTrckAl4pge7lxwZV78r39/a/NKSvWowFYEGhHpJ+KqbMzTxplg1/AWef+0gfbg
XMBBvtDR+lmzBaIxWezR2XEFxGLjzQJlrO9S8xIdMC54exzz+r3QQB482k1qrUm0OF+9
L48Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQluAngHJxU6BXIWs6cZyBMM2hdz3CCdDO0wMrOPkuwFrdfSaO2/0Z3mbvzqW+vah8/A5G3I
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.58.7 with SMTP id m7mr20353272wjq.109.1435506714190;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 08:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 08:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-vQ+bCyT8mLNBvLDhhQzCHXxaRos-3VFDGkCsxvCiX3jA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1164261435450448@web14h.yandex.ru> <558F583C.1000500@gmail.com>
<2A94BDF7-F265-4D36-B438-DC4F432E1C67@gmail.com>
<558F8634.90904@gmail.com>
<38C2E2A1-EB6C-48EB-8FA1-7FAA97B3E911@gmail.com>
<CAOG=w-vQ+bCyT8mLNBvLDhhQzCHXxaRos-3VFDGkCsxvCiX3jA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:51:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDq31doL62a2HwY8kSuB1zPMhz6OPR0Qa9X7thbZBdNTOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Original Vision
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 15:51:57 -0000
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> wr=
ote:
> UTXO commitments are the nominal solution here. You commit the validator =
state in each block, and then you can prove things like a negative by refer=
encing that state commitment. The trouble is this requires maintaining a ha=
sh tree commitment over validator state, which turns out to be insanely exp=
ensive. With the UTXO commitment scheme (the others are not better) that en=
ds up requiring 15 - 22x more I/O during block validation. And I/O is prese=
ntly a limiter to block validation speed. So if you thought 8MB was what bi=
tcoin today could handle, and you also want this commitment scheme for frau=
d proofs, then you should be arguing for a block size limit decrease (to 50=
0kB), not increase.
What about a TXO and a STXO O(1)-append commitment? That shouldn't
cause that much overhead and you can build UTXO from TXO - STXO.
I know it's not so efficient in some respects but it scales better I think.
|
