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 8C39771F for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 20:42:59 +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 F00271A8 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 20:42:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168502080E; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 08 Apr 2017 16:42:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc: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=KUUfw7 6mHBvFcTzZqvGoSfoKchK6k/pA5ja4O2NDk5I=; b=Nkfeq9YfmiRlHoD2mDWRAH NPDyjAHfPxRnrcMWLJhiFmYU0PZglThG+Duvmmd/W2UYI1N9Hov0d0OlHTzNCFAq 70R9Nc65jh/6ACXs55z/CTxD4wPMis2oVi7Ve8T3StuhFIz6NRL14kCfgy8yLj19 esKlwiUWf5QGff3Q6phtjB29CoIVW/m1HRUuyrVNLIDgQ5OacioDlUayKD2l83eG HxAPCXWhTIwaiZODPCkObih8P1xZVbe4cI/kmUo1NqwiI/62Jmbh5ltu5vg83U+8 SvB0gQaT9Wm1Yvbn1fK13hNDxY4Y4009IddWZaq7zwwLlwi5zebna0/d/37grZtw == X-ME-Sender: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id E9FF59ECBB; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1491684177.2464571.938617456.37E2534B@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Tomas To: Johnson Lau MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-7c174d5d In-Reply-To: References: <1491516747.3791700.936828232.69F82904@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1491599691.1245876.937920664.6EBA20DC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1491636528.2474173.938219072.54C44183@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6F1E6FB6-1342-4BD6-BF83-A160C1A7CD34@xbt.hk> <1491681378.2454247.938587616.7199D633@webmail.messagingengine.com> Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:57 +0200 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 21:37:04 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev 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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:42:59 -0000 > Please no conspiracy theory like stepping on someone=E2=80=99s toes. I be= lieve > it=E2=80=99s always nice to challenge the established model. However, as = I=E2=80=99m > trying to make some hardfork design, I intend to have a stricter UTXO > growth limit. As you said "protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not > be worth considering protocol improvements*, it sounds like UTXO growth > limit wouldn=E2=80=99t be very helpful for your model, which I doubt.=20 Thank you. I realize that this particular phrase implies that in my design, outputs are less costly then inputs, *in total resource costs*, which I can not defend without completely ignoring base load script verification. I rephrased it. Tomas