📅 Original date posted:2017-02-24
📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> I think you've misunderstood what TXO commitments are. From my article:
>
> "A merkle tree committing to the state of all transaction outputs, both
> spent
> and unspent, can provide a method of compactly proving the current state
> of an
> output."
> -https://petertodd.org/2016/delayed-txo-commitments#txo-commitments:
>
The proposal on that page is of a tree which does require random access
updates, it just positions entries in the order they happened to be added
instead of sorting by their hash. Once you start updating it to indicate
spent status all the exact same issues of TXO size and cache coherence on
updates show up again, but now you're using a more complex bespoke data
structure instead of a basic fundamental one.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170223/e1b6fe16/attachment.html>;
Bram Cohen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ld…t8ur6
2023-06-07 17:56:32
in reply to nevent1q…jctm
Author Public Key
npub1ldcq03p2qe58u0xnlwa35wchjuhz49y6ueu5ghmtjetez9xstnvsmt8ur6Published at
2023-06-07 17:56:32Event JSON
{
"id": "c991691163a4fc8c1a719b1acc9a25f3c7129edc4280892eccc91806a594e91d",
"pubkey": "fb7007c42a06687e3cd3fbbb1a3b17972e2a949ae679445f6b96579114d05cd9",
"created_at": 1686160592,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7c1fe6216790fb2846f605436edee6db0e33feb9c670df2e38b3b46417cf9504",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"11d6b17782d64d58599f5e22e99af94ded8d3b1a61b8b3f217a316644b049e33",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-02-24\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I think you've misunderstood what TXO commitments are. From my article:\n\u003e\n\u003e \"A merkle tree committing to the state of all transaction outputs, both\n\u003e spent\n\u003e and unspent, can provide a method of compactly proving the current state\n\u003e of an\n\u003e output.\"\n\u003e -https://petertodd.org/2016/delayed-txo-commitments#txo-commitments:\n\u003e\n\nThe proposal on that page is of a tree which does require random access\nupdates, it just positions entries in the order they happened to be added\ninstead of sorting by their hash. Once you start updating it to indicate\nspent status all the exact same issues of TXO size and cache coherence on\nupdates show up again, but now you're using a more complex bespoke data\nstructure instead of a basic fundamental one.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170223/e1b6fe16/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "b049c6a516858e84141dce89f8dfceb289c948b1416d46a806ecf97cd8616d95d1e987b94c82aca49b98fc3892a9920a6abb548b94cff5d8cd4b03d7dbf43215"
}