From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rolling UTXO set hashes
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 07:01:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170516110104.GA5564@fedora-23-dvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTif+Y6VzFG+w7W+CY1+D_roCqGyy392qB2KcDPGpVeiw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1715 bytes --]
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:59:58PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:04 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > transactions is in the header, which would let lite nodes download a UTXO
> > set from any full node and verify it by verifying only block headers
> > starting from genesis.
>
> Ya, lite nodes with UTXO sets are one of the the oldest observed
> advantages of a commitment to the UTXO data:
>
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21995.0
>
> But it requires a commitment. And for most of the arguments for those
> you really want compact membership proofs. The recent rise in
> interest in full block lite clients (for privacy reasons), perhaps
> complements the membership proofless usage.
>
> Pieter describes some uses for doing something like this without a
> commitment. In my view, it's more interesting to first gain
> experience with an operation without committing to it (which is a
> consensus change and requires more care and consideration, which are
> easier if people have implementation experience).
To be clear, *none* of the previous (U)TXO commitment schemes require *miners*
to participate in generating a commitment. While that was previously thought to
be true by many, I've seen no counter-arguments to the argument I published I
few months ago(1) that (U)TXO commitments did not require a soft-fork to
deploy.
1) "[bitcoin-dev] TXO commitments do not need a soft-fork to be useful",
Peter Todd, Feb 23 2017,
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013591.html
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-16 11:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-15 20:01 Pieter Wuille
2017-05-15 20:53 ` Peter R
2017-05-15 23:04 ` ZmnSCPxj
2017-05-15 23:59 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-05-16 0:15 ` ZmnSCPxj
2017-05-16 11:01 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2017-05-16 18:17 ` Pieter Wuille
2017-05-16 18:20 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-05-23 4:47 ` Rusty Russell
2017-05-23 20:43 ` Pieter Wuille
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=20170516110104.GA5564@fedora-23-dvm \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=greg@xiph$(echo .)org \
/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