đź“… Original date posted:2015-10-30
đź“ť Original message:> On Oct 29, 2015, at 8:35 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Given that UTXO storage is considered critical, it seems reasonable to
>
> This sounds like a misunderstanding of what consensus criticial means.
> It does not mean that it must be right (though obviously that is
> preferable) but that it must be _consistent_, between all nodes.
Can you give a specific example of how nodes that used different database technologies might determine different answers to whether a given transaction is valid or invalid? I’m not a database expert, but to me it would seem that if all the unspent outputs can be found in the database, and if the relevant information about each output can be retrieved without corruption, then that’s all that really matters as far as the database is concerned.
Let’s use an unspent pay-to-pubkey-hash output as an example: Alice spends this to Bob (she signs it properly), the TX propagates across the network and…then what? Do some nodes disagree on whether or not the TX is valid? What exactly would they disagree on? Are you suggesting that a database bug would cause some nodes to think the output was actually already spent, while others can correctly see that it’s unspent? Or maybe some nodes think the output doesn’t exist while others do? Or are you suggesting that the details about this output might be retrieved with errors from certain databases but correctly from others?
I’d like a concrete example to help me understand why more than one implementation of something like the UTXO database would be unreasonable.
Peter
Peter R [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vx…lz2gn
2023-06-07 17:43:55
in reply to nevent1q…kdpj
Author Public Key
npub1vxzlqg5f7ykqr3hheqxdcqe35q02a8rr2mez30sjaldhlvu4hsvsqlz2gnPublished at
2023-06-07 17:43:55Event JSON
{
"id": "74b32f4830274a8b314eb4b8782a1e77c576d58ed30f813c6017c08c38bfd89f",
"pubkey": "6185f02289f12c01c6f7c80cdc0331a01eae9c6356f228be12efdb7fb395bc19",
"created_at": 1686159835,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"09f07bc0e1ba48805727ba44deb034dc283bfadbc39b90714e52ddd0cad07414",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a390785462c8a3cd16ff8f72744548aeb59a78344c61f8ca890c39d50e6e679b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-30\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Oct 29, 2015, at 8:35 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Given that UTXO storage is considered critical, it seems reasonable to\n\u003e \n\u003e This sounds like a misunderstanding of what consensus criticial means.\n\u003e It does not mean that it must be right (though obviously that is\n\u003e preferable) but that it must be _consistent_, between all nodes.\n\nCan you give a specific example of how nodes that used different database technologies might determine different answers to whether a given transaction is valid or invalid? I’m not a database expert, but to me it would seem that if all the unspent outputs can be found in the database, and if the relevant information about each output can be retrieved without corruption, then that’s all that really matters as far as the database is concerned.\n\nLet’s use an unspent pay-to-pubkey-hash output as an example: Alice spends this to Bob (she signs it properly), the TX propagates across the network and…then what? Do some nodes disagree on whether or not the TX is valid? What exactly would they disagree on? Are you suggesting that a database bug would cause some nodes to think the output was actually already spent, while others can correctly see that it’s unspent? Or maybe some nodes think the output doesn’t exist while others do? Or are you suggesting that the details about this output might be retrieved with errors from certain databases but correctly from others? \n\nI’d like a concrete example to help me understand why more than one implementation of something like the UTXO database would be unreasonable. \n\nPeter",
"sig": "907b25b069dd1e763ee09deda0765ae9ecf318740491dfbb0ea1f1068e8099f839da9b928a42aa807d7f7a3f6c4cb903dc4aa99c8a25a16b95dc891fef76fe8b"
}