rich1.0Tomas [ARCHIVE] (npub1rs…9evk4)https://nostr.ae/npub1rsp4w56r24w3zv4xy8zfgesep45qmf9rq6aghxfw3wr7yemqnnwsf9evk4njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-04-06 📝 Original message: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