public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] TXO commitments do not need a soft-fork to be useful
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 08:23:53 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170516122353.GA5808@fedora-23-dvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE28kUTxc4KPvijiaJQ6M=LDPf_Du1pFdehfTtXtqs0hOtyWTw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1171 bytes --]

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:15:17PM +0300, Alex Mizrahi via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Something I've recently realised is that TXO commitments do not need to be
> > implemented as a consensus protocol change to be useful.
> 
> 
> You're slow, Peter. I figured this out back in 2013:
> 
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153662.10

Lol, good job! And you even figured out that lovely "distributed file system"
explanation first.

Though, it does look like I'm still the person who made it 100% *clear* the
first time - you're explanation is easy to read the wrong way, particularly
when you say:

"Next time I will teach you how to implement a blockchain-based cryptocurrency
in such a way that new miners can start mining right away without downloading
whole blockchain, stay tuned..."

After all, at the time UTXO commitments had been already discussed. Also,
talking about a DHT in relation to this stuff probably made the explanation get
missed by some people.


Unfortunately, I think this is a good example of how important coming up with
good explanations and analogies is. :/

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

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

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-16 12:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-23  1:11 [bitcoin-dev] TXO commitments do not need a soft-fork to be useful Peter Todd
2017-02-23  3:30 ` Eric Lombrozo
2017-02-23  7:23 ` Peter Todd
2017-05-16 12:15 ` Alex Mizrahi
2017-05-16 12:23   ` Peter Todd [this message]
2017-02-28 16:26 praxeology_guy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170516122353.GA5808@fedora-23-dvm \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=alex.mizrahi@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox