rich1.0Tomas [ARCHIVE] (npub1rs…9evk4)https://nostr.ae/npub1rsp4w56r24w3zv4xy8zfgesep45qmf9rq6aghxfw3wr7yemqnnwsf9evk4njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-04-07 📝 Original message:Thank you Marcos, Though written in Rust, bitcrust-db is definitely usable as pluggable module as its interface will be roughly some queries, add_tx and add_block with blobs and flags. (Bitcrust internally uses a deserialize-only model, keeping references to the blobs with the parsed data). However, from Core's side I believe network and storage are currently rather tightly coupled, which will make this far from trivial. Regardless, I am also hoping (with funding & a team) to build a Bitcrust networking component as well to bring a strong competitor to the market. best, Tomas On Fri, Apr 7, 2017, at 09:55, Marcos mayorga wrote: > Hi Tomas, > > I've read it and think it is an excellent work, I'd like to see it > integrated into bitcoin-core as a 'kernel module'. > > I see there are a lot of proof of concepts out there, IMO every one > deserve a room in the bitcoin client as a selectable feature, to make the > software more flexible and less dictatorial, an user could easily select > which features she wants to run. > > Best regards, > Marcos > > > I have been working on a bitcoin implementation that uses a different > > approach to indexing for verifying the order of transactions. Instead of > > using an index of unspent outputs, double spends are verified by using a > > spend-tree where spends are scanned against spent outputs instead of > > unspent outputs. > > > > This allows for much better concurrency, as not only blocks, but also > > individual inputs can be verified fully in parallel. > > > > I explain the approach at https://bitcrust.org, source code is available > > at https://github.com/tomasvdw/bitcrust > > > > I am sharing this not only to ask for your feedback, but also to call > > for a clear separation of protocol and implementations: As this > > solution, reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, seems to have > > excellent performance characteristics (as shown in the test results), > > updates to the protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not be worth > > considering *protocol improvements* and it might be best to address > > these concerns as implementation details. > > > > Kind regards, > > Tomas van der Wansem > > tomas at bitcrust.org > > Bitcrust > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > >