Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making UTXO Set Growth Irrelevant With Low-Latency Delayed TXO Commitments

From: Peter Todd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:55:33 -0400

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:46:32AM +0200, Johnson Lau wrote:
> How is this compared to my earlier proposal: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011952.html <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011952.html> ?
> 
> In my proposal, only the (pruned) UTXO set, and 32 bytes per archived block, are required for mining. But it is probably more difficult for people to spend an archived output. They need to know the status of other archived outputs from the same block. A full re-scan of the blockchain may be needed to generate the proof but this could be done by a third party archival node.

We're working along the same lines, but my proposal is much better fleshed out;
I think you'll find you missed a few details if you flesh out yours in more
detail. For instance, since your dormant UTXO list is indexed by UTXO
expiration order, it's not possible to do any kind of verification that the
contents of that commitment are correct without the global state of all UTXO
data - you have no ability to locally verify as nothing commits to the contents
of the UTXO set.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org