From: Tomas <tomas@tomasvdw•nl>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt•hk>,
"bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Using a storage engine without UTXO-index
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 21:56:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1491681378.2454247.938587616.7199D633@webmail.messagingengine.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6F1E6FB6-1342-4BD6-BF83-A160C1A7CD34@xbt.hk>
> I don’t fully understand your storage engine. So the following deduction
> is just based on common sense.
>
> a) It is possible to make unlimited number of 1-in-100-out txs
>
> b) The maximum number of 100-in-1-out txs is limited by the number of
> previous 1-in-100-out txs
>
> c) Since bitcrust performs not good with 100-in-1-out txs, for anti-DoS
> purpose you should limit the number of previous 1-in-100-out txs.
>
> d) Limit 1-in-100-out txs == Limit UTXO growth
>
> I’m not surprised that you find an model more efficient than Core. But I
> don’t believe one could find a model that doesn’t become more efficient
> with UTXO growth limitation.
My efficiency claims are *only* with regards to order validation. If we
assume all transactions are already pre-synced and verified, bitcrust's
order validation is very fast, and (only slightly) negatively effected
by input-counts.
Most total time is spend during base load script validation, and UTXO
growth is the definitely the limiting factor there, as the model here
isn't all that different from Core's.
> Maybe you could try an experiment with regtest? Make a lot 1-in-100-out
> txs with many blocks, then spend all the UTXOs with 100-in-1-out txs.
> Compare the performance of bitcrust with core. Then repeat with
> 1-in-1-out chained txs (so the UTXO set is always almost empty)
>
Again, this really depends on whether we focus on full block validation,
in which case the 100-1, 1-100 distinction will be the similar to Core,
or only regard order validation, in which case Bitcrust will have this
odd reversal.
> One more question: what is the absolute minimum disk and memory usage in
> bitcrust, compared with the pruning mode in Core?
As bitcrust doesn't support this yet, I cannot give accurate numbers,
but I've provided some numbers estimates earlier in the thread.
Rereading my post and these comments, I may have stepped on some toes
with regards to SegWit's model. I like SegWit (though I may have a
slight preference for BIP140), and I understand the reasons for the
"discount", so this was not my intention. I just think that the reversal
of costs during peak load order validation is a rather interesting
feature of using spend-tree based validation.
Tomas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-08 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-06 22:12 Tomas
2017-04-06 23:38 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-04-07 0:17 ` Tomas
2017-04-08 22:37 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-04-08 23:58 ` Tomas
2017-04-11 1:44 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-04-11 8:43 ` Tomas
2017-04-11 9:41 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-04-11 10:04 ` Tomas
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgTEMCkDWdhCWt1EsUrnt3+Z_8m+Y1PTsff5Rc0CBnCKWQ@mail.gmail.com>
2017-04-07 0:48 ` Tomas
2017-04-07 1:09 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-04-07 1:29 ` Tomas
2017-04-07 18:52 ` Tom Harding
2017-04-07 19:42 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-04-08 18:27 ` Tom Harding
2017-04-08 19:23 ` Tomas
2017-04-07 7:55 ` Marcos mayorga
2017-04-07 8:47 ` Tomas
2017-04-07 14:14 ` Greg Sanders
2017-04-07 16:02 ` Tomas
2017-04-07 18:18 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-04-07 18:39 ` Bram Cohen
2017-04-07 19:55 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-04-07 21:44 ` Tomas
2017-04-07 23:51 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-04-07 21:14 ` Tomas
2017-04-08 0:44 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-04-08 7:28 ` Tomas
2017-04-08 19:23 ` Johnson Lau
2017-04-08 19:56 ` Tomas [this message]
2017-04-08 20:21 ` Johnson Lau
2017-04-08 20:42 ` Tomas
2017-04-08 22:12 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-04-08 22:34 ` Tomas
2017-04-08 21:22 ` Troy Benjegerdes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1491681378.2454247.938587616.7199D633@webmail.messagingengine.com \
--to=tomas@tomasvdw$(echo .)nl \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jl2012@xbt$(echo .)hk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox