<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Peter Todd <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target="_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
</div></div>Glad we're on the same page with regard to what's possible in TXO commitments.<br>
<br>
Secondly, am I correct in saying your UTXO commitments scheme requires random<br>
access? While you describe it as a "merkle set", obviously to be merkelized<br>
it'll have to have an ordering of some kind. What do you propose that ordering<br>
to be?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The ordering is by the bits in the hash. Technically it's a Patricia Trie. I'm using 'merkle tree' to refer to basically anything with a hash root.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Maybe more specifically, what exact values do you propose to be in the set?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is unspecified in the implementation, it just takes a 256 bit value which is presumably a hash of something. The intention is to nail down a simple format and demonstrate good performance and leave those semantics to a higher layer. The simplest thing would be to hash together the txid and output number.</div></div></div></div>