On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 08:22:04PM -0700, Bram Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> > Agreed - regardless of approach adding latency to commitment calculations
> > of
> > all kinds is something I think we all agree can work in principle, although
> > obviously it should be a last resort technique when optimization fails.
> >
> 
> An important point: Adding latency to utxo commitments does not imply
> latency to proofs of inclusion and exclusion! If roots of what's added and
> deleted in each block are added as well, then a proof of inclusion can be
> done by having a proof of inclusion of the trailing utxo set followed by a
> proof of exclusion from all the following deletion sets, or a proof of
> inclusion in one of the single block addition sets followed by proofs of
> exclusion from all the more recent deletion sets. Likewise a proof of
> exclusion can be a proof of exclusion from the utxo set followed by proofs
> of exclusion from all the more recent addition sets or a single proof of
> inclusion in a recent deletion set.
> 
> This does make proofs larger (except in the case of recent deletions and
> maybe recent additions) and adds complexity, so it shouldn't be done unless
> necessary.

So, to be clear you're assuming that blocks commit to key:value maps of the
block contents, specifically a pre-block "UTXO deletion/things that this block
spent" set? First of all, it's interesting how the much smaller dataset of a
pre-block key:value map would make L2/L3 caching optimizations much more likely
to be relevant. :)


That type of solution would be very similar to the solutions treechains would
need to prove coins haven't been doublespent. Basically, in treechains the
system as a whole is a datastructure indexed by time and prefix. So, if you
want to prove a valid spend you need to convince me of three things:

1. The coin existed as of time t1 at prefix p

2. At t2, p, a valid spend was published.

3. Between t1 and t2 at prefix p no other valid spend was published.

Paths to any prefix p as of time t, will have about log2(len(p)) size (beyond
the top-level chain), similar to your above suggestion. Of course, unlike your
above suggestion, in treechains it's not clear if step #1 can be done without
another n*log(N)-ish sized proof in a truly trustless environment!

> But validation before block propagation needs to be extremely
> fast, so for utxo roots this trick is probably both necessary and
> sufficient.

I'm _not_ of the optinion that validation before propagation needs to be done
at all - I think it's perfectly reasonable to propgate blocks that you have not
validated at all (beyond checking PoW as an anti-DoS measure).  The time it
takes miners to start mining the next block - and collecting fees - is however
very important.

In practice, I think we're mostly in agreement here, but because I'm happy to
propagate prior to validating I'd be ok with protocol designs that required
miners to have relatively large amounts of RAM - say 32GB - dedicated to UTXO
lookup because that wouldn't require relay nodes to also have those kinds of
resources available to them once validationless propagation was implemented.

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