[bitcoin-dev] A Better MMR Definition

[Bram Cohen]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:

>
> Glad we're on the same page with regard to what's possible in TXO
> commitments.
>
> Secondly, am I correct in saying your UTXO commitments scheme requires
> random
> access? While you describe it as a "merkle set", obviously to be merkelized
> it'll have to have an ordering of some kind. What do you propose that
> ordering
> to be?
>

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.


> Maybe more specifically, what exact values do you propose to be in the set?
>
>
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170223/ebb642c9/attachment.html>