On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Mark Friedenbach <[email protected]> wrote: > UTXO commitments are the nominal solution here. You commit the validator > state in each block, and then you can prove things like a negative by > referencing that state commitment. The trouble is this requires maintaining a > hash tree commitment over validator state, which turns out to be insanely > expensive. With the UTXO commitment scheme (the others are not better) that > ends up requiring 15 - 22x more I/O during block validation. And I/O is > presently a limiter to block validation speed. So if you thought 8MB was what > bitcoin today could handle, and you also want this commitment scheme for > fraud proofs, then you should be arguing for a block size limit decrease (to > 500kB), not increase.
What about a TXO and a STXO O(1)-append commitment? That shouldn't cause that much overhead and you can build UTXO from TXO - STXO. I know it's not so efficient in some respects but it scales better I think. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
