Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rolling UTXO set hashes

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1715 bytes --]

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:59:58PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:04 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > transactions is in the header, which would let lite nodes download a UTXO
> > set from any full node and verify it by verifying only block headers
> > starting from genesis.
> 
> Ya, lite nodes with UTXO sets are one of the the oldest observed
> advantages of a commitment to the UTXO data:
> 
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21995.0
> 
> But it requires a commitment. And for most of the arguments for those
> you really want compact membership proofs.  The recent rise in
> interest in full block lite clients (for privacy reasons), perhaps
> complements the membership proofless usage.
> 
> Pieter describes some uses for doing something like this without a
> commitment.  In my view, it's more interesting to first gain
> experience with an operation without committing to it (which is a
> consensus change and requires more care and consideration, which are
> easier if people have implementation experience).

To be clear, *none* of the previous (U)TXO commitment schemes require *miners*
to participate in generating a commitment. While that was previously thought to
be true by many, I've seen no counter-arguments to the argument I published I
few months ago(1) that (U)TXO commitments did not require a soft-fork to
deploy.

1) "[bitcoin-dev] TXO commitments do not need a soft-fork to be useful",
   Peter Todd, Feb 23 2017,
   https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013591.html

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

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