3 ms·

thanks for detailed response! > Depending on a utxo state in blocks is effectively the SPV security model, -- it's an utter blind trust in miners to set the va

thanks for detailed response! > Depending on a utxo state in blocks is effectively the SPV security model, -- it's an utter blind trust in miners to set the value honestly if it was hardforked in as part of consensus protocol - miner's wouldn't be able to set invalid utxo set hash any more than they are able to "produce" blocks with invalid signatures, or am i missing something? as for storage and performance, maybe it would make sense to take the performance hit of maintaining a persistent immutable set such that you would be able to travel back as far as you like with minimal overhead. do you know of any active PRs/branches where utxo commitment work is/has been happening?

nullc 5y ago
They can produce blocks with invalid signatures, but they're stopped by nodes validating. But if instead of validation nodes skip blocks and use a commitment to the state, then they're not validating anymore. How that fails is why I gave the ethereum example, because I think the security has actually practically failed there-- just not been exploited yet. > as for storage and performance, maybe it would make sense to take the performance hit of maintaining a persistent immutable set such that you would be able to travel back as far as you like with minimal overhead. The cost of supporting that arbitrarily would be extremely high over and above the cost of having the complete blockchain. I don't see why anyone would choose to run a node to serve that. I certainly wouldn't-- it's obnoxious enough just to have an archive node. But having some periodic snapshots would probably be fine ... but not that many since each would be on the order of 7GB of additional storage. No, there is work ongoing I haven't been following closely. Sounds like you're more interested in the assumeutxo style usage, so search for that and muhash.

nullc 5y ago

They can produce blocks with invalid signatures, but they're stopped by nodes validating. But if instead of validation nodes skip blocks and use a commitment to the state, then they're not validating anymore. How that fails is why I gave the ethereum example, because I think the security has actually practically failed there-- just not been exploited yet. > as for storage and performance, maybe it would make sense to take the performance hit of maintaining a persistent immutable set such that you would be able to travel back as far as you like with minimal overhead. The cost of supporting that arbitrarily would be extremely high over and above the cost of having the complete blockchain. I don't see why anyone would choose to run a node to serve that. I certainly wouldn't-- it's obnoxious enough just to have an archive node. But having some periodic snapshots would probably be fine ... but not that many since each would be on the order of 7GB of additional storage. No, there is work ongoing I haven't been following closely. Sounds like you're more interested in the assumeutxo style usage, so search for that and muhash.