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
|
Return-Path: <tomas@tomasvdw.nl>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9B7E41C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 07:28:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
[66.111.4.25])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D2D8A4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 07:28:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42])
by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D221209F5;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 03:28:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213])
by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 08 Apr 2017 03:28:48 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=nEJOU7
b7gOteg0KMGiejUMDV4SQ8CdFJye8MImm32/c=; b=LVOS6pD8HH9daV8cZRFY1C
oCiMOCgsz15PkRHIFtEKBwd2oCmcvyWA1oqnwKnMeta8wPWceoJGuQDQmyRPHueJ
l/cYnYfVzghj057RFykpOFNgjeO/h+/TcEioD1hvmAWwVYe6ktTFXv0KkOeCWZZy
dgOByeih82+ubZ3hDSUWSHqhgAoX1yLJRJipCJSdb8/iHW8jlhndyNVauE7lrtDm
2BXXmYXLNl9mz24y/BxjwAh4XZor90Lj0ht+Dpc7sye+ijl8Cz3jFQkGz89ZCVz/
0UdBb2nPY8NMcPU+t1I8qTgeQAkZJHFfdEoskq352o0fdvdDCh8n1SfOxdqa6ayQ
==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:MJHoWNY68NUKhn4xJKDhKUEz0ysok-UyLQ0gFsLF0QL-O2sSJdQbVQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99)
id 3F98A9ECBB; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 03:28:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1491636528.2474173.938219072.54C44183@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Tomas <tomas@tomasvdw.nl>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-7c174d5d
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTWyX5M-xcELC2vDvGfs01tbGYkpZJCSeNbvn_p4Ecjqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:28:48 +0200
References: <1491516747.3791700.936828232.69F82904@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<CAAS2fgTJ8xOj8zCmBq1LN9OdMV-tDfSjVUPhLpO98cR1w-QAoA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+KqGko0cDY29bhznMxJJ7yAUTuB6GaDDNGBRwzssJUxM_53xQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1491599691.1245876.937920664.6EBA20DC@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<CAAS2fgTWyX5M-xcELC2vDvGfs01tbGYkpZJCSeNbvn_p4Ecjqg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 10:24:29 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:28:50 -0000
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017, at 02:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> As you note that the output costs still bound the resource
> requirements.
Resource cost is not just a measure of storage requirement; data that
needs to be accessed during peak load induce more cost then data only
used during base load or only rarely used.
> Latency related costs in Bitcoin Core also do not depend on the number
> of outputs in transactions in a block. When a transaction is handled
> it goes into an in-memory buffer and only gets flushed later if isn't
> spent before the buffer fills. A block will take more time to
> validate with more inputs, same as you observer, but the aggregate
> resource usage for users depends significantly on outputs (so, in fact
> there is even further misaligned incentives than just the fact that
> small outputs have a outsized long term cost).
In Core, when a block comes the inputs are checked against the UTXO set
(which grows with outputs) even if pre-synced, to verify order. Am I
wrong there? This is not in the case in bitcrust; it is instead checked
against the spend-tree (which grows with inputs).
How "significant" this is, I neither know nor claim, but it is an
interesting difference.
> Then I think you may want to retract the claim that "As this solution,
> reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, [...] updates to the
> protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not be worth considering
> *protocol improvements* "
I think you are being a bit harsh here . I am also clearly explaining
the difference only applies to peak load, and just making a suggestion.
I simply want to stress the importance of protocol / implementation
separation as even though you are correct UTXO data is always a resource
cost for script validation (as I also state), the ratio of different
costs are not necessarily *identical* across implementation.
Note that the converse also holds: In bitcrust, if the last few blocks
contain many inputs, the peak load verification for this block is
slower. This is not the case in Core.
Tomas
|
