rich1.0npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9https://nostr.ae/npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-04-08 📝 Original message:> On 9 Apr 2017, at 03:56, Tomas <tomas at tomasvdw.nl> wrote: > > >> I don’t fully understand your storage engine. So the following deduction >> is just based on common sense. >> >> a) It is possible to make unlimited number of 1-in-100-out txs >> >> b) The maximum number of 100-in-1-out txs is limited by the number of >> previous 1-in-100-out txs >> >> c) Since bitcrust performs not good with 100-in-1-out txs, for anti-DoS >> purpose you should limit the number of previous 1-in-100-out txs. >> >> d) Limit 1-in-100-out txs == Limit UTXO growth >> >> I’m not surprised that you find an model more efficient than Core. But I >> don’t believe one could find a model that doesn’t become more efficient >> with UTXO growth limitation. > > My efficiency claims are *only* with regards to order validation. If we > assume all transactions are already pre-synced and verified, bitcrust's > order validation is very fast, and (only slightly) negatively effected > by input-counts. pre-synced means already in mempool and verified? Then it sounds like we just need some mempool optimisation? The tx order in a block is not important, unless they are dependent > >> One more question: what is the absolute minimum disk and memory usage in >> bitcrust, compared with the pruning mode in Core? > > As bitcrust doesn't support this yet, I cannot give accurate numbers, > but I've provided some numbers estimates earlier in the thread. > > > Rereading my post and these comments, I may have stepped on some toes > with regards to SegWit's model. I like SegWit (though I may have a > slight preference for BIP140), and I understand the reasons for the > "discount", so this was not my intention. I just think that the reversal > of costs during peak load order validation is a rather interesting > feature of using spend-tree based validation. > > Tomas Please no conspiracy theory like stepping on someone’s toes. I believe it’s always nice to challenge the established model. However, as I’m trying to make some hardfork design, I intend to have a stricter UTXO growth limit. As you said "protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not be worth considering protocol improvements*, it sounds like UTXO growth limit wouldn’t be very helpful for your model, which I doubt.