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 2E284B8C for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:09:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com (mail-vk0-f41.google.com [209.85.213.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69369203 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:09:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id r69so60039073vke.2 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 18:09:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=IY2qhtwZICZuFJSoCht3lYHpf8pJDh82YHoAaWUVuQs=; b=D9LLTIX/t+p+B81dKgTJKV68XqiPVZF2CReZrkjx3jNOmEKFYd5Vi02j+9+/6Vr9s4 G4y6Y3WZLx9bStbynh7PPb2KgXyGyc5xDGNOU4xN77CW30PIA6iBGkmcYlvwjuh4Vu4O Pa+7AXTLzELQ5TE/cy9uHPUhvVSN7avifIvvNY1TRdYGqkpnNOZmvXlJJi/lgf4yufPw 45cZ5ji+WcOEs/wO4kcqLHyJlz77lN91PNYOgN37KeDIPWHAtABoGusQbgfR08tcJJXl 0O7zWlHNoM7ZGAqjUrzJKNxXqVq8yU4eY5wtzMtn1i/E+i4Ac2QoyRl/z/n+hpvhrFxS jknQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IY2qhtwZICZuFJSoCht3lYHpf8pJDh82YHoAaWUVuQs=; b=Ih95OAKqGzIKLYxs8i/uIlBrQRafCINOLSNNfKIF3Y+/ebaPdUKuHx1kjIbe2Q9wly XPp+x1Cd4VC9+oGtrwkfSbYwfCR16dC1lOcZSzqhLmThyvwEbtBK2IsjpeOb7R+ZYVjQ GnBiCd5VVtptUZu3V7I5tT6ySg1vkZNJomw9Pa+95FhZd8N31EQnXUVCbEiHBMuU6Y2B Pz7+ak0Zag3En7+Vwd4oZE7ohVaj7o58Z0LwhQPdBcko4pKpGfDiWWGdaDkcNKkf5xyp taLZB5DMazQdWf+OsdDJtTx6yyvIlGpSsR57YND7jYDnxiosQind5z7OyyeBOyjX/6Wl Pxvw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0Dx/W+yfZfDiNzpLk4DeBsepHX65SvsQ1ikHYXahsx+FkVH2ARg/jSv78vGwZ1U49c1NjtmmsWoQArmw== X-Received: by 10.176.9.129 with SMTP id x1mr16072092uag.96.1491527366481; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 18:09:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.152.203 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:09:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1491526132.723002.936945760.06A943C6@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1491516747.3791700.936828232.69F82904@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1491526132.723002.936945760.06A943C6@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:09:26 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rEz5_FCAObnQtVoeXm7SM8TSwYM Message-ID: To: Tomas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 01:09:28 -0000 On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Tomas wrote: > Bitcrust separates script validation (base load, when transaction come > in) from order validation (peak load, when blocks come in). How do you deal with validity rules changing based on block height? > For script validation it would obviously need the ~2GB (or I think > ~1.5GB) of outputs needed to validate these. So it sounds like to work the software still needs an analog of a (U)TXO database? I am confused by the earlier comments about thinking the the resource consumption of the (U)TXO database is not a consideration in your design. > For order validation it > needs ~200mb or the spent-index (for bit-lookups) and I would guess > roughly ~500mb of the spent-tree (for scanning), though I don't think > the 5.7GB full spend tree isn't worth pruning anytime soon. If you get a transaction claiming to spend 0xDEADBEEFDEADBEEF, an output that never existed how does your spent index reject this spend?