> the validity of a sponsor txn is "monotonically" true at any point after
the inclusion of the sponsored txn in a block.
Oh I see his point now. If sponsors were valid at any point in the future,
not only would a utxo index be needed but an index of all transactions.
Yeah, that wouldn't be good.
> What do you mean by monotone in the context of sponsor transactions?
I take this to mean that the validity of a sponsor txn is
"monotonically" true at any point after the inclusion of the sponsored
txn in a block.
> And when you say tx-index, do you mean an index for looking up a
> transaction
@Jeremy
> there are technical reasons for sponsors to not be monotone. Mostly that
it requires the maintenance of an additional permanent TX-Index, making
Bitcoin's state grow at a much worse rate
What do you mean by monotone in the context of sponsor transactions? And when
you say tx-index, do
