📅 Original date posted:2018-02-21
📝 Original message:> What you are suggesting, unless I am mistaken, is that new full nodes should have no way of knowing if an output is spent or even if it exists. Since large sections of the blockchain will potentially be skipped, the full node will not have complete knowledge of utxo's just for starters.
So, this might not have been clear, but by "if we are given the liberty of modifying the protocol as we wish" I meant that I was discussing a protocol where these sorts of concerns are not an issue because we are not limited by the constraints of Bitcoin's current design.
There have been plenty of proposals across the web for how to design a blockchain where what you're referring to is not an issue because of merkle commitments, etc., and some blockchains already do this (e.g. I believe Ethereum does this via parity).
Cheers,
Greg
--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
> On Feb 19, 2018, at 4:04 AM, Damian Williamson <willtech at live.com.au> wrote:
>
> >1. Introducing state checkpoints into the chain itself could make it possible for full nodes to skip verification of large sections of historical data when booting up.
>
> What you are suggesting, unless I am mistaken, is that new full nodes should have no way of knowing if an output is spent or even if it exists. Since large sections of the blockchain will potentially be skipped, the full node will not have complete knowledge of utxo's just for starters.
>
> Regards,
> Damian Williamson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180221/1f9f0f49/attachment.sig>;
Tao Effect [ARCHIVE] /
npub1r0…vdpg3
2023-06-07 18:10:56
in reply to nevent1q…jqzh
Author Public Key
npub1r0g954grld59fuphzsypmuuhpdunq67f729afmp44h2mxvth2hts4vdpg3Seen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 18:10:56Event JSON
{
"id": "fedf050fb27a38b60e7299d109868e40734ec3195c847d6c9a845072d0eca938",
"pubkey": "1bd05a5503fb6854f03714081df3970b79306bc9f28bd4ec35add5b3317755d7",
"created_at": 1686161456,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"33426837e4385de326988d65d4b12c529d51e1b81c10e509c6e1e5a5e31e15ce",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"145e4d268086bd25ba7dbc4e5c52bf0607a427a26207a7899932fae76f69f49e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"807351d851a3c419faea089fe59e0d72175abc5b316d48bfa974b48d83c07fed"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-02-21\n📝 Original message:\u003e What you are suggesting, unless I am mistaken, is that new full nodes should have no way of knowing if an output is spent or even if it exists. Since large sections of the blockchain will potentially be skipped, the full node will not have complete knowledge of utxo's just for starters.\n\nSo, this might not have been clear, but by \"if we are given the liberty of modifying the protocol as we wish\" I meant that I was discussing a protocol where these sorts of concerns are not an issue because we are not limited by the constraints of Bitcoin's current design.\n\nThere have been plenty of proposals across the web for how to design a blockchain where what you're referring to is not an issue because of merkle commitments, etc., and some blockchains already do this (e.g. I believe Ethereum does this via parity).\n\nCheers,\nGreg\n\n--\nPlease do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.\n\n\u003e On Feb 19, 2018, at 4:04 AM, Damian Williamson \u003cwilltech at live.com.au\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e1. Introducing state checkpoints into the chain itself could make it possible for full nodes to skip verification of large sections of historical data when booting up.\n\u003e \n\u003e What you are suggesting, unless I am mistaken, is that new full nodes should have no way of knowing if an output is spent or even if it exists. Since large sections of the blockchain will potentially be skipped, the full node will not have complete knowledge of utxo's just for starters.\n\u003e \n\u003e Regards,\n\u003e Damian Williamson\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180221/1f9f0f49/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "ecd4de9bcd73b4caa2f32f864441a91c08e183df85dde29fa78f4ba108000fe6be2bf52e2f185acc7ecdadc16b6e3a312e04506bacbf7fd05cc28ed826635a33"
}