> 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. Most total time is spend during base load script validation, and UTXO growth is the definitely the limiting factor there, as the model here isn't all that different from Core's. > Maybe you could try an experiment with regtest? Make a lot 1-in-100-out > txs with many blocks, then spend all the UTXOs with 100-in-1-out txs. > Compare the performance of bitcrust with core. Then repeat with > 1-in-1-out chained txs (so the UTXO set is always almost empty) > Again, this really depends on whether we focus on full block validation, in which case the 100-1, 1-100 distinction will be the similar to Core, or only regard order validation, in which case Bitcrust will have this odd reversal. > 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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
