Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-04-06 📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-04-06
📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Tomas <tomas at tomasvdw.nl> 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?
📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Tomas <tomas at tomasvdw.nl> 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?