From: Bram Cohen <bram@bittorrent•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Better MMR Definition
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:49:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+KqGkowxEZeAFYa2JJchBDtRkg1p3YZNocivzu3fAtgRLDRBQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170223235105.GA28497@savin.petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1386 bytes --]
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 03:13:43PM -0800, Bram Cohen wrote:
> >
> > I can't speak to MMRs (they look a bit redundant with the actual
> blockchain
> > history to my eye) but circling back to utxo commitments, the benefits
> are
>
> In what way do you see MMRs as redundant?
>
You can readily prove something is in the TXO or STXO set using the actual
blockchain, and the proofs will be nice and compact because even light
nodes are expected to already have all the historical headers.
What you can't do with MMRs or the blockchain is make a compact proof that
something is still in the utxo set, which is the whole point of utxo
commitments.
It's totally reasonable for full nodes to independently update and
recalculate the utxo set as part of their validation process. The same
can't be done for a balanced version of the txo set because it's too big.
Relying on proofs as a crutch for using the full txo set would badly
exacerbate the already extant problem of miners doing spv mining, and
increase the bandwidth a full validating node had to use by a multiple.
This whole conversation is badly sidetracked. If people have comments on my
merkle set I'd like to engage further with them, but mmrs need to be argued
independently on their own merits before being used as a counterpoint to
utxo commitments.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1848 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-24 0:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-23 1:15 Peter Todd
2017-02-23 3:07 ` Bram Cohen
2017-02-23 7:41 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-23 17:53 ` Chris Priest
2017-02-23 18:19 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-23 18:28 ` G. Andrew Stone
2017-02-23 18:31 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-23 23:13 ` Bram Cohen
2017-02-23 23:51 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-24 0:49 ` Bram Cohen [this message]
2017-02-24 1:09 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-24 2:50 ` Bram Cohen
2017-02-24 2:58 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-24 3:02 ` Bram Cohen
2017-02-24 3:15 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-24 3:32 ` Bram Cohen
2017-02-24 4:36 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-24 22:20 ` Bram Cohen
2017-02-25 4:12 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-25 6:23 ` Bram Cohen
2017-02-28 16:43 ` G. Andrew Stone
2017-02-28 23:10 ` Bram Cohen
2017-02-28 23:24 ` Pieter Wuille
2017-03-01 1:47 ` Bram Cohen
2017-03-01 1:56 ` Peter Todd
2017-03-01 22:31 ` Peter Todd
2017-03-31 20:38 ` Bram Cohen
2017-04-01 10:18 ` praxeology_guy
2017-04-01 19:46 ` praxeology_guy
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=CA+KqGkowxEZeAFYa2JJchBDtRkg1p3YZNocivzu3fAtgRLDRBQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=bram@bittorrent$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(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