From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C06D3910 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 08:47:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09812187 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 08:47:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5560D20A21; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:47:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 07 Apr 2017 04:47:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=2APaMN mVLfqGJNQVWC9ioFk7+pLr5O4i3tl4SzJ9gRo=; b=Ri8mE0na4lN2MQlxlD69h3 m6hMo8oHzd3RBLqAZG/9QHHX+ERmJ5h51i6Xz6aXoezQQ5rw/EcL6MIK3UcJsgNU Oa2pp7H4RmbtlAN9WC5cpEJtFZvcqHduJ85Gr8IDkKSt2OmHo9tgsc7GA+iL/Gk7 fOteZ6IcC0jFUjL46OqmBChj83JBADqokeG3TP5qYP7qo7aicFDnTSWYCqx9GvZ5 GUBPvE6cZ/H5/bFkBrJ0qm3Xdo/Fwcl6Z2HCCUYIsCXctYilAz6qkRJH6EH5tUpI zPuI+Ge2D+M+rH3XCUN7Kc564P3IFBcBBjCcQQmw/wXHHOlcvgeQxuxp59M+fYnQ == X-ME-Sender: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 353159EC4C; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:47:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1491554876.1963053.937226528.7010832E@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Tomas To: Marcos mayorga , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-7c174d5d In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:47:56 +0200 References: <1491516747.3791700.936828232.69F82904@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, URIBL_RHS_DOB autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 11:13:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Using a storage engine without UTXO-index X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:47:57 -0000 Thank you Marcos, Though written in Rust, bitcrust-db is definitely usable as pluggable module as its interface will be roughly some queries, add_tx and add_block with blobs and flags. (Bitcrust internally uses a deserialize-only model, keeping references to the blobs with the parsed data). However, from Core's side I believe network and storage are currently rather tightly coupled, which will make this far from trivial. Regardless, I am also hoping (with funding & a team) to build a Bitcrust networking component as well to bring a strong competitor to the market. best, Tomas On Fri, Apr 7, 2017, at 09:55, Marcos mayorga wrote: > Hi Tomas, > > I've read it and think it is an excellent work, I'd like to see it > integrated into bitcoin-core as a 'kernel module'. > > I see there are a lot of proof of concepts out there, IMO every one > deserve a room in the bitcoin client as a selectable feature, to make the > software more flexible and less dictatorial, an user could easily select > which features she wants to run. > > Best regards, > Marcos > > > I have been working on a bitcoin implementation that uses a different > > approach to indexing for verifying the order of transactions. Instead of > > using an index of unspent outputs, double spends are verified by using a > > spend-tree where spends are scanned against spent outputs instead of > > unspent outputs. > > > > This allows for much better concurrency, as not only blocks, but also > > individual inputs can be verified fully in parallel. > > > > I explain the approach at https://bitcrust.org, source code is available > > at https://github.com/tomasvdw/bitcrust > > > > I am sharing this not only to ask for your feedback, but also to call > > for a clear separation of protocol and implementations: As this > > solution, reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, seems to have > > excellent performance characteristics (as shown in the test results), > > updates to the protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not be worth > > considering *protocol improvements* and it might be best to address > > these concerns as implementation details. > > > > Kind regards, > > Tomas van der Wansem > > tomas@bitcrust.org > > Bitcrust > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > >