<div dir="auto">Has it been considered to add a UTXO checkpoint transaction <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Here's how it would work </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Someone submits a transaction that contains a large fee and a hash of the UTXO set along with block height as opcode parameter </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Miners refuse to include this transaction unless the hash of the UTXO set matches </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Because performing that hash is expensive, it should have an extremely high cost factor, equivalent to say a 100KB transaction or something </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">These checkpoints are explicitly for the purpose of fast-synchronizing extremely lightweight nodes. It's reasonable to refuse to use a checkpoint that isn't at least several months old. It should be easy for anyone to find a sufficiently aged checkpoint and synchronize from that point onward.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Or is this just a solution without a problem?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div> <p></p> -- <br /> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.<br /> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br /> To view this discussion visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAJowKgLC9LdAu2mrQB-yW2Qoa3jU3BwZyL%2BQT4WW8f257Jkfhw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAJowKgLC9LdAu2mrQB-yW2Qoa3jU3BwZyL%2BQT4WW8f257Jkfhw%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br />