--- Log opened Thu Oct 28 00:00:16 2021
10:47 < adiabat> just a note: the other accumulator design won't support exclusion proofs
10:48 < adiabat> The only way I know of how to do that with hash based accumulators is to sort the leaves, which doesn't seem possible with most of the utreexo design
10:49 < adiabat> but I think most of the time you want inclusion proofs, like "This UTXO exists" 
10:49 < adiabat> to prove "this UTXO doesn't exist anymore" you could use an SPV proof of the transaction that spends it
10:50 < adiabat> to prove "this UTXO never existed" though, I don't know any way to do that
10:51 < adiabat> but that doesn't seem as useful anyway I guess.  So hopefully the other options which we can do cover the use cases you have
11:13 -!- ogola [~ogola@dolos.media.mit.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:14 -!- ogola [~ogola@dolos.media.mit.edu] has joined #utreexo
11:14 -!- panpan [~panpan@dolos.media.mit.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:14 -!- panpan [~panpan@dolos.media.mit.edu] has joined #utreexo
14:56 < RubenSomsen> adiabat: correct me if I'm wrong, but in the swapless utreexo design none of the UTXOs ever change position, so assuming you knew the position of the UTXO prior to it being spent, you can prove exclusion
14:58 < RubenSomsen> if you don't know the original position then I believe you're right that you'd need an ordered set to prove exclusion
15:00 < RubenSomsen> you could also define the full exclusion proof as "a proof that the UTXO existed at location X" + "a proof that the UTXO no longer exists at this position"
22:30 -!- fjahr [sid374480@uxbridge.irccloud.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
22:30 -!- dergoegge [sid453889@lymington.irccloud.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
22:33 -!- fjahr [sid374480@id-374480.uxbridge.irccloud.com] has joined #utreexo
22:33 -!- dergoegge [sid453889@id-453889.lymington.irccloud.com] has joined #utreexo
23:04 < kcalvinalvin> RubenSomsen: that'd assume you know the numbering of each utxo. If the node keeps track of which utxo got created when, you could but otherwise you can't
23:07 < kcalvinalvin> which is why I worded the swapless as "could" support exclusion
23:08 < kcalvinalvin> tbh I don't think any of us would bother implementing that
--- Log closed Fri Oct 29 00:00:17 2021