[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       bitcoin-dev
Subject:    [Bitcoin-development] =?utf-8?q?To_prevent_arbitrary_data_storage?=
From:       pete () petertodd ! org (Peter Todd)
Date:       2013-04-11 11:27:08
Message-ID: 20130411112708.GA1006 () savin
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 05:58:10PM +0200, Jorge Tim?n wrote:
> On 4/10/13, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> > Oh, and while we're at it, long-term (hard-fork) it'd be good to change
> > the tx hash algorithm to extend the merkle tree into the txouts/txins
> > itself, which means that to prove a given txout exists you only need to
> > provide it, rather than the full tx.
> > 
> > Currently pruning can't prune a whole tx until every output is spent.
> > Make that change and we can prune tx's bit by bit, and still be able to
> > serve nodes requesting proof of their UTXO without making life difficult
> > for anyone trying to spent old UTXO's. The idea is also part of UTXO
> > proof stuff anyway.
> 
> I thought about this before, I like the idea very much.
> Would such a fork be controversial for anyone?
> Would anyone oppose to this for some reason I'm missing?

You mean https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137933.0 ?

I would oppose it, and I wrote the above proposal. The code required to
implement UTXO fraud proofs is more complex than the entire Bitcoin code
base; obviously that much new fork-critical code opens up huge technical
risks. As an example, can you think of how UTXO fraud proofs can cause
an arbitrarily deep re-org?

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130411/839ddbc3/attachment.sig>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]