{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"Tomas [ARCHIVE] (npub1rs…9evk4)","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1rsp4w56r24w3zv4xy8zfgesep45qmf9rq6aghxfw3wr7yemqnnwsf9evk4","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-04-06\n📝 Original message:I have been working on a bitcoin implementation that uses a different\napproach to indexing for verifying the order of transactions. Instead of\nusing an index of unspent outputs, double spends are verified by using a\nspend-tree where spends are scanned against spent outputs instead of\nunspent outputs.\n\nThis allows for much better concurrency, as not only blocks, but also\nindividual inputs can be verified fully in parallel.\n\nI explain the approach at https://bitcrust.org, source code is available\nat https://github.com/tomasvdw/bitcrust\n\nI am sharing this not only to ask for your feedback, but also to call\nfor a clear separation of protocol and implementations: As this\nsolution, reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, seems to have\nexcellent performance characteristics (as shown in the test results),\nupdates to the protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not be worth\nconsidering *protocol improvements* and it might be best to address\nthese concerns as implementation details.\n\nKind regards,\nTomas van der Wansem\ntomas at bitcrust.org\nBitcrust"}