[bitcoin-dev] Using a storage engine without UTXO-index
gsanders87 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 7 14:14:31 UTC 2017
I was wondering if you could tell us what specs for the machine being used
as preliminary benchmark is here: https://bitcrust.org/results ?
I'd be interested to also see comparisons with 0.14 which has some
improvements for script validation with more cores.
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Tomas via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Thank you Marcos,
> Though written in Rust, bitcrust-db is definitely usable as pluggable
> module as its interface will be roughly some queries, add_tx and
> add_block with blobs and flags. (Bitcrust internally uses a
> deserialize-only model, keeping references to the blobs with the parsed
> However, from Core's side I believe network and storage are currently
> rather tightly coupled, which will make this far from trivial.
> Regardless, I am also hoping (with funding & a team) to build a Bitcrust
> networking component as well to bring a strong competitor to the market.
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017, at 09:55, Marcos mayorga wrote:
> > Hi Tomas,
> > I've read it and think it is an excellent work, I'd like to see it
> > integrated into bitcoin-core as a 'kernel module'.
> > I see there are a lot of proof of concepts out there, IMO every one
> > deserve a room in the bitcoin client as a selectable feature, to make the
> > software more flexible and less dictatorial, an user could easily select
> > which features she wants to run.
> > Best regards,
> > Marcos
> > > I have been working on a bitcoin implementation that uses a different
> > > approach to indexing for verifying the order of transactions. Instead
> > > using an index of unspent outputs, double spends are verified by using
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> > >
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev