Ah, thanks, I suspected the idea was too simple and must have been
discussed before, but somehow I missed these proposals. I've got some
reading to do.

-Marc

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not clear to me if you are have looked at the previous UTXO set
> commitment proposals.
>
> some utxo set commitment bookmarks (a little old)
> http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/bitcoin/utxo-commitments-or-
> fraud-proofs.stdout.txt
>
> TXO bitfields
> http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/sf-bitcoin-meetup/
> 2017-07-08-bram-cohen-merkle-sets/
>
> delayed TXO commitments
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/
> 2016-May/012715.html
>
> TXO commitments do not need a soft-fork to be useful
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/
> 2017-February/013591.html
>
> rolling UTXO set hashes
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/
> 2017-May/014337.html
>
> lotta other resources available, including source code proposals..
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507 <(512)%20203-0507>
>