On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> just the first - and one that has very low costs and no normative
> datastructures at all.
The serialization of the txout itself is normative, but very minimal.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin
>On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:04 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>> transactions is in the header, which would let lite nodes download a UTXO
>> set from any full node and verify it by verifying only block headers
>> starting from genesis.
>
>Ya, lite nodes with UTXO sets are one of the the old
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> To be clear, *none* of the previous (U)TXO commitment schemes require *miners*
> to participate in generating a commitment. While that was previously thought
> to
> be true by many, I've seen no counter-arguments to the argument
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:15:17PM +0300, Alex Mizrahi via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Something I've recently realised is that TXO commitments do not need to be
> > implemented as a consensus protocol change to be useful.
>
>
> You're slow, Peter. I figured this out back in 2013:
>
> https://bitcoin
> Something I've recently realised is that TXO commitments do not need to be
> implemented as a consensus protocol change to be useful.
You're slow, Peter. I figured this out back in 2013:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153662.10
___
bitcoin-d
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:59:58PM +, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:04 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > transactions is in the header, which would let lite nodes download a UTXO
> > set from any full node and verify it by verifying only block head
