Thomas Voegtlin [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-01-07 📝 Original message:Le 07/01/2014 01:21, Mark ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-01-07
📝 Original message:Le 07/01/2014 01:21, Mark Friedenbach a écrit :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/06/2014 10:13 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 07:43:58PM +0100, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
>>> I have written a Python-levelDB implementation of this UTXO
>>> hashtree, which is currently being tested, and will be added to
>>> Electrum servers.
>> Along the lines of my recent post on blockchain data:
>>
>> Is it going to be possible to do partial prefix queries on that
>> tree?
> There's really two tree structures being talked about here. Correct me
> if I'm wrong Thomas, but last time I looked at your code it was still
> implementing a 256-way PATRICIA trie, correct? This structure lends
> itself to indexing either scriptPubKey or H(scriptPubKey) with
> approximately the same performance characteristics, and in the
> "Ultimate blockchain compression" thread there is much debate about
> which to use.
You are right. The 256-way branching follows from the fact that
the tree was implemented using a key-value database operating
with byte strings (leveldb). With this implementation constraint,
a different branching would probably be possible but wasteful.
My recent code creates one leaf per unspent, and uses 56-byte
keys built as:
H(scriptPubKey) + txid + txpos
(This is not pushed yet, it needs cleanup. Previous code created one
leaf per address)
Partial prefix queries are possible with database iterators.
> In the process of experimentation I've since moved from a 256-way
> PATRICIA trie to a bitwise, non-level-compressed trie structure - what
> I call proof-updatable trees in the BIP. These have the advantage of
> allowing stateless application of one proof to another, and as
> consequence enable mining & mempool operations without access to the
> UTXO set, so long as proofs are initially provided in the transaction
> & block wire format.
I see the advantage of doing that, but this looks really far-fetched..
My understanding is that it would require a complete change in the
way clients and miners work. Could such a change be brought iteratively?
📝 Original message:Le 07/01/2014 01:21, Mark Friedenbach a écrit :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/06/2014 10:13 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 07:43:58PM +0100, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
>>> I have written a Python-levelDB implementation of this UTXO
>>> hashtree, which is currently being tested, and will be added to
>>> Electrum servers.
>> Along the lines of my recent post on blockchain data:
>>
>> Is it going to be possible to do partial prefix queries on that
>> tree?
> There's really two tree structures being talked about here. Correct me
> if I'm wrong Thomas, but last time I looked at your code it was still
> implementing a 256-way PATRICIA trie, correct? This structure lends
> itself to indexing either scriptPubKey or H(scriptPubKey) with
> approximately the same performance characteristics, and in the
> "Ultimate blockchain compression" thread there is much debate about
> which to use.
You are right. The 256-way branching follows from the fact that
the tree was implemented using a key-value database operating
with byte strings (leveldb). With this implementation constraint,
a different branching would probably be possible but wasteful.
My recent code creates one leaf per unspent, and uses 56-byte
keys built as:
H(scriptPubKey) + txid + txpos
(This is not pushed yet, it needs cleanup. Previous code created one
leaf per address)
Partial prefix queries are possible with database iterators.
> In the process of experimentation I've since moved from a 256-way
> PATRICIA trie to a bitwise, non-level-compressed trie structure - what
> I call proof-updatable trees in the BIP. These have the advantage of
> allowing stateless application of one proof to another, and as
> consequence enable mining & mempool operations without access to the
> UTXO set, so long as proofs are initially provided in the transaction
> & block wire format.
I see the advantage of doing that, but this looks really far-fetched..
My understanding is that it would require a complete change in the
way clients and miners work. Could such a change be brought iteratively?