3 ms·
@JJ big fan of yours and ideas behind Urkel. Now in C it’ll be very performant. Likewise, I’ve done testing with SMT and we were hitting the same bottlenecks.
by AR_1 6y ago
@JJ big fan of yours and ideas behind Urkel.
Now in C it’ll be very performant.
Likewise, I’ve done testing with SMT and we were hitting the same bottlenecks.
It will be interesting to test this implementation.
We recently published a research paper where we propose a use of dynamic B+ Tree with efficient proof sizes.
Dynamic Merkle B-Tree with Efficient Proofs:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.01994 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.01994
- chjj 6y agoOh, that's interesting. I think the main thing that turned me away from more typical persistent data structures was my assumption that the proof size would be unacceptably large (also that branch rewrites during insertion would cause too much growth). A solution to that would be amazing. I'll try to grok this later tonight.
- AR_1 6y agoHappy to discuss and dive in. We’ve been thinking about this problem for quite some time. JP was supposed to put us in touch last year, as we had questions on Urkel, but it never happened. Happy to connect here.