{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-12-20\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 02:07:36AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e have run a node/kept their utxo before they were aware of this change and\n\u003e \u003e then realise miners have discarded their utxo. Oops?\n\u003e \n\u003e I believe you have misunderstood jl2012's post.  His post does not\n\u003e cause the outputs to become discarded. They are still spendable,\n\u003e but the transactions must carry a membership proof to spend them.\n\u003e They don't have to have stored the data themselves, but they must\n\u003e get it from somewhere-- including archive nodes that serve this\n\u003e purpose rather than having every full node carry all that data forever.\n\u003e \n\u003e Please be conservative with the send button. The list loses its\n\u003e utility if every moderately complex idea is hit with reflexive\n\u003e opposition by people who don't understand it.\n\u003e \n\u003e Peter Todd has proposed something fairly similar with \"STXO\n\u003e commitments\". The primary argument against this kind of approach that\n\nThat's incorrect terminology - what I proposed are \"TXO commitments\". I\nproposed that a MMR of all prior transaction outputs's, spent and\nunspent, be committed too in blocks along with a spentness flag, not\njust spent transaction outputs.\n\nThat's why I often use the term (U)TXO commitments to refer to both\nclasses of proposals.\n\n\u003e I'm aware of is that the membership proofs get pretty big, and if too\n\u003e aggressive this trades bandwidth for storage, and storage is usually\n\u003e the cheaper resource. Though at least the membership proofs could be\n\u003e omitted when transmitting to a node which has signaled that it has\n\u003e kept the historical data anyways.\n\nWhat I proprosed is that a consensus-critical maximum UTXO age be part\nof the protocol; UTXO's younger than that age are expected to be cached.\nFor UTXO's older than that age, they can be dropped from the cache,\nhowever to spend them you are required to provide the proof, and that\nproof counts as blockchain space to account for the fact that they do\nneed to be broadcast on the network.\n\nThe proofs are relatively large, but not so much larger than a CTxIn as\nto make paying for that data infeasible.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151220/ee109d4b/attachment.sig\u003e"}