📅 Original date posted:2017-02-23
📝 Original message:Can an insertion ordered MMR allow an efficient nonexistence proof?
On Feb 23, 2017 1:20 PM, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 09:53:58AM -0800, Chris Priest wrote:
> > On 2/22/17, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > Reposting something that came up recently in a private discussion with
> some
> > > academics:
> > >
> > > Concretely, let's define a prunable MMR with the following grammar.
> This
> > > definition is an improvement on whats in the python-proofmarshal by
> > > committing
> > > to the number of items in the tree implicitly; an obvious
> max-log2(n)-sized
> > > proof-of-tree-size can be obtained by following the right-most nodes:
> >
> > What problem does this try to solve, and what does it have to do with
> bitcoin?
>
> See the discussion on TXO commitments for how MMR's could be used; a
> better MMR
> makes for a better TXO commitment.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170223/07c5af54/attachment.html>;
G. Andrew Stone [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ts…9cyxz
2023-06-07 17:56:31
in reply to nevent1q…7c20
Author Public Key
npub1tsl0vdp4gegx6p7m073lphfl7zcrctud0qhutzf63up2h6r2kdcq99cyxzPublished at
2023-06-07 17:56:31Event JSON
{
"id": "8912a948825c4102b9d0180eea6e1725cd954510732d48c64fd76aa0a6f60c74",
"pubkey": "5c3ef6343546506d07db7fa3f0dd3ff0b03c2f8d782fc5893a8f02abe86ab370",
"created_at": 1686160591,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7c1fe6216790fb2846f605436edee6db0e33feb9c670df2e38b3b46417cf9504",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"216ee8663171a17de0bd90fb66dde4bea24a0b6dd83d4d3f8aeba582bf2cb02d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-02-23\n📝 Original message:Can an insertion ordered MMR allow an efficient nonexistence proof?\nOn Feb 23, 2017 1:20 PM, \"Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 09:53:58AM -0800, Chris Priest wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On 2/22/17, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Reposting something that came up recently in a private discussion with\n\u003e some\n\u003e \u003e \u003e academics:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Concretely, let's define a prunable MMR with the following grammar.\n\u003e This\n\u003e \u003e \u003e definition is an improvement on whats in the python-proofmarshal by\n\u003e \u003e \u003e committing\n\u003e \u003e \u003e to the number of items in the tree implicitly; an obvious\n\u003e max-log2(n)-sized\n\u003e \u003e \u003e proof-of-tree-size can be obtained by following the right-most nodes:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e What problem does this try to solve, and what does it have to do with\n\u003e bitcoin?\n\u003e\n\u003e See the discussion on TXO commitments for how MMR's could be used; a\n\u003e better MMR\n\u003e makes for a better TXO commitment.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170223/07c5af54/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "35106fefa3f90c6059a9fb121b571cadcaef55c1e8f43a892065bcdfe7c29b8ac26e14266a85711f30c9469e75bc0dcfc2a6a15c78ad93369c3a403e87f96e72"
}