Tomas [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-04-08 📝 Original message:> I don’t fully ...
đź“… Original date posted:2017-04-08
📝 Original message:> I don’t fully understand your storage engine. So the following deduction
> is just based on common sense.
>
> a) It is possible to make unlimited number of 1-in-100-out txs
>
> b) The maximum number of 100-in-1-out txs is limited by the number of
> previous 1-in-100-out txs
>
> c) Since bitcrust performs not good with 100-in-1-out txs, for anti-DoS
> purpose you should limit the number of previous 1-in-100-out txs.
>
> d) Limit 1-in-100-out txs == Limit UTXO growth
>
> I’m not surprised that you find an model more efficient than Core. But I
> don’t believe one could find a model that doesn’t become more efficient
> with UTXO growth limitation.
My efficiency claims are *only* with regards to order validation. If we
assume all transactions are already pre-synced and verified, bitcrust's
order validation is very fast, and (only slightly) negatively effected
by input-counts.
Most total time is spend during base load script validation, and UTXO
growth is the definitely the limiting factor there, as the model here
isn't all that different from Core's.
> Maybe you could try an experiment with regtest? Make a lot 1-in-100-out
> txs with many blocks, then spend all the UTXOs with 100-in-1-out txs.
> Compare the performance of bitcrust with core. Then repeat with
> 1-in-1-out chained txs (so the UTXO set is always almost empty)
>
Again, this really depends on whether we focus on full block validation,
in which case the 100-1, 1-100 distinction will be the similar to Core,
or only regard order validation, in which case Bitcrust will have this
odd reversal.
> One more question: what is the absolute minimum disk and memory usage in
> bitcrust, compared with the pruning mode in Core?
As bitcrust doesn't support this yet, I cannot give accurate numbers,
but I've provided some numbers estimates earlier in the thread.
Rereading my post and these comments, I may have stepped on some toes
with regards to SegWit's model. I like SegWit (though I may have a
slight preference for BIP140), and I understand the reasons for the
"discount", so this was not my intention. I just think that the reversal
of costs during peak load order validation is a rather interesting
feature of using spend-tree based validation.
Tomas
📝 Original message:> I don’t fully understand your storage engine. So the following deduction
> is just based on common sense.
>
> a) It is possible to make unlimited number of 1-in-100-out txs
>
> b) The maximum number of 100-in-1-out txs is limited by the number of
> previous 1-in-100-out txs
>
> c) Since bitcrust performs not good with 100-in-1-out txs, for anti-DoS
> purpose you should limit the number of previous 1-in-100-out txs.
>
> d) Limit 1-in-100-out txs == Limit UTXO growth
>
> I’m not surprised that you find an model more efficient than Core. But I
> don’t believe one could find a model that doesn’t become more efficient
> with UTXO growth limitation.
My efficiency claims are *only* with regards to order validation. If we
assume all transactions are already pre-synced and verified, bitcrust's
order validation is very fast, and (only slightly) negatively effected
by input-counts.
Most total time is spend during base load script validation, and UTXO
growth is the definitely the limiting factor there, as the model here
isn't all that different from Core's.
> Maybe you could try an experiment with regtest? Make a lot 1-in-100-out
> txs with many blocks, then spend all the UTXOs with 100-in-1-out txs.
> Compare the performance of bitcrust with core. Then repeat with
> 1-in-1-out chained txs (so the UTXO set is always almost empty)
>
Again, this really depends on whether we focus on full block validation,
in which case the 100-1, 1-100 distinction will be the similar to Core,
or only regard order validation, in which case Bitcrust will have this
odd reversal.
> One more question: what is the absolute minimum disk and memory usage in
> bitcrust, compared with the pruning mode in Core?
As bitcrust doesn't support this yet, I cannot give accurate numbers,
but I've provided some numbers estimates earlier in the thread.
Rereading my post and these comments, I may have stepped on some toes
with regards to SegWit's model. I like SegWit (though I may have a
slight preference for BIP140), and I understand the reasons for the
"discount", so this was not my intention. I just think that the reversal
of costs during peak load order validation is a rather interesting
feature of using spend-tree based validation.
Tomas