Re: [bitcoin-dev] Merkle trees and mountain ranges

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6753 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 06:16:26PM -0700, Bram Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:14:23PM -0700, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter proposes that there should be both UTXO and STXO commitments, and
> >
> > No, that's incorrect - I'm only proposing TXO commitments, not UTXO nor
> > STXO
> > commitments.
> >
> 
> What do you mean by TXO commitments? If you mean that it only records
> insertions rather than deletions, then that can do many of the same proofs
> but has no way of proving that something is currently in the UTXO set,
> which is functionality I'd like to provide.

I think you need to re-read my original post on TXO commitments, specifically
where I say:

    # TXO Commitments

    A merkle tree committing to the state of __all transaction outputs, both spent
    and unspent__, we can provide a method of compactly proving the current state of
    an output.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012715.html

> When I say 'merkle tree' what I mean is a patricia trie. What I assume is
> meant by a merkle mountain range is a series of patricia tries of
> decreasing size each of which is an addition to the previous one, and
> they're periodically consolidated into larger tries so the old ones can go
> away. This data structure has the nice property that it's both in sorted
> order and has less than one cache miss per operation because the
> consolidation operations can be batched and done linearly. There are a
> number of different things you could be describing if I misunderstood.

Nope, MMR's are completely unlike what you just described.

> > I'm not proposing STXO commitments precisely because the set of _spent_
> > transactions grows without bound.
> 
> 
> I'm worried that once there's real transaction fees everyone might stop
> consolidating dust and the set of unspent transactions might grow without
> bound as well, but that's a topic for another day.

Ok, but then if you're concerned about that risk, why introduce a data
structure - the STXO set - that's _guaranteed_ to grow without bound?

> > > Now I'm going to go out on a limb. My thesis is that usage of a mountain
> > > range is unnecessary, and that a merkle tree in the raw can be made
> > > serviceable by sprinkling magic pixie dust on the performance problem.
> >
> > It'd help if you specified exactly what type of merkle tree you're talking
> > about here; remember that the certificate transparency RFC appears to have
> > reinvented merkle mountain ranges, and they call them "merkle trees".
> > Bitcoin
> > meanwhile uses a so-called "merkle tree" that's broken, and Zcash uses a
> > partially filled fixed-sized perfect tree.
> >
> 
> What I'm making is a patricia trie. Its byte level definition is very
> similar to the one in your MMR codebase.

Which codebase exactly? I have both a insertion-ordered list (MMR) and a
key:value mapping (referred to as a "merbinner tree" in the codebase) in the
proofchains codebase. They're very different data structures.

> Each level of the tree has a single metadata byte and followed by two
> hashes. The hashes are truncated by one byte and the hash function is a
> non-padding variant of sha256 (right now it's just using regular sha256,
> but that's a nice optimization which allows everything to fit in a single
> block).
> 
> The possible metadata values are: TERM0, TERM1, TERMBOTH, ONLY0, ONLY1,
> MIDDLE. They mean:
> 
> TERM0, TERM1: There is a single thing in the tree on the specified side.
> The thing hashed on that side is that thing verbatim. The other side has
> more than one thing and the hash of it is the root of everything below.
> 
> TERMBOTH: There are exactly two things below and they're included inline.
> Note that two things is a special case, if there are more you sometimes
> have ONLY0 or ONLY1.
> 
> ONLY0, ONLY1: There are more than two things below and they're all on the
> same side. This makes proofs of inclusion and exclusion simpler, and makes
> some implementation details easier, for example there's always something at
> every level with perfect memory positioning. It doesn't cause much extra
> memory usage because of the TERMBOTH exception for exactly two things.
> 
> MIDDLE: There two or more things on both sides.
> 
> There's also a SINGLETON special case for a tree which contains only one
> thing, and an EMPTY special value for tree which doesn't contain anything.
> 
> The main differences to your patricia trie are the non-padding sha256 and
> that each level doesn't hash in a record of its depth and the usage of
> ONLY0 and ONLY1.

I'm rather confused, as the above sounds nothing like what I've implemented,
which only has leaf nodes, inner nodes, and the special empty node singleton,
for both the MMR and merbinner trees.

> > I'm having a hard time understanding this paragraph; could you explain
> > what you
> > think is happening when things are "merged into larger hills"?
> >
> 
> I'm talking about the recalculation of mountain tips, assuming we're on the
> same page about what 'MMR' means.

Yeah, we're definitely not...

In MMR's append operations never need to modify mountain contents.

> > As UTXO/STXO/TXO sets are all enormously larger than L1/L2 cache, it's
> > impossible to get CPU cache misses below one for update operations. The
> > closest
> > thing to an exception is MMR's, which due to their insertion-ordering could
> > have good cache locality for appends, in the sense that the mountain tips
> > required to recalculate the MMR tip digest will already be in cache from
> > the
> > previous append. But that's not sufficient, as you also need to modify old
> > TXO's further back in the tree to mark them as spent - that data is going
> > to be
> > far larger than L1/L2 cache.
> >
> 
> This makes me think we're talking about subtly different things for MMRs.
> The ones I described above have sub-1 cache miss per update due to the
> amortized merging together of old mountains.

Again, see above.

> Technically even a patricia trie utxo commitment can have sub-1 cache
> misses per update if some of the updates in a single block are close to
> each other in memory. I think I can get practical Bitcoin updates down to a
> little bit less than one l2 cache miss per update, but not a lot less.

I'm very confused as to why you think that's possible. When you say "practical
Bitcoin updates", what exactly is the data structure you're proposing to
update? How is it indexed?

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]