[bitcoin-dev] TXO commitments do not need a soft-fork to be useful

[Peter Todd]

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153662.10

Lol, good job! And you even figured out that lovely "distributed file system"
explanation first.

Though, it does look like I'm still the person who made it 100% *clear* the
first time - you're explanation is easy to read the wrong way, particularly
when you say:

"Next time I will teach you how to implement a blockchain-based cryptocurrency
in such a way that new miners can start mining right away without downloading
whole blockchain, stay tuned..."

After all, at the time UTXO commitments had been already discussed. Also,
talking about a DHT in relation to this stuff probably made the explanation get
missed by some people.


Unfortunately, I think this is a good example of how important coming up with
good explanations and analogies is. :/

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170516/f98a72c8/attachment.sig>