On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 07:43:58PM +0100, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
> Hello and happy new year to this mailing list!
> 
> 
> Thank you Mark for the incredible work you've been doing on this.
> I am following this very closely, because it is of primary importance
> for Electrum.
> 
> I have written a Python-levelDB implementation of this UTXO hashtree,
> which is currently being tested, and will be added to Electrum servers.

Along the lines of my recent post on blockchain data:

Is it going to be possible to do partial prefix queries on that tree?

Also have you considered creating per-block indexes of all
scriptPubKeys, spent or unspent, queryable via the same partial prefix
method?

> I too believe that BIPs should define interoperability points, but probably
> not implementation details. For the UTXO hashtree, this means that a BIP
> should at least specify how the root hash is constructed. This might be the
> only thing that needs to be specified.
> 
> However, I see no pressing issue with writing a BIP; it might be preferable
> to implement and test different options first, and learn from that.

It'd be very good to test this stuff thoroughly on Electrum first and
get a feel for the performance and usability before any soft-fork to
make it a miner commitment.

Similarly a C++ implementation should be simply added to Bitcoin Core as
a bloom filter replacement and made available over the P2P network.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000009bc28e08b41a74801c5878bf87978c2486aee7ed8a85778