Cryptocurrency: Scaling, Privacy [re: on whatever...]

Zenaan Harkness zen at freedbms.net
Sun Dec 15 15:13:44 PST 2019


On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 09:55:29AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 05:51:57PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 05:51:44 -0500
> > grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > a) they can be sharded signed and distributed out to query trees,
> > > doesn't solve things long term.
> > > b) utxo can be flag cutover coinbase input to empty chain, very unlikely.
> > > c) chain protocols will evolve to effectively consensus mine
> > > a utxo database, hashed checkpoint series, etc thereby
> > > allowing tx's and blocks to be thrown away after the series
> > > becomes too confirmed and locked to mine a different one.
> > > 
> > > Storage becomes mooted, 
> > 
> > 	The problem isn't storage per se. The thing is, all peers have to validate all transactions. And that may include all past transactions. It may seem pointless to revalidate old transactions but how do you arrive at the current state if you don't? 
> 
> 
> Git seems to do reasonably well in the "only download -valid-, and
> "recent" (delta to my existing set of) TXNs.
> 
> If there is concensus on "most recent 'snapshot' point in time"
> signature or something, earlier history could be discarded by those
> who are not needing or wanting to validate -all- past TXNs.  Surely.
> 
> Of course, if you want to validate all past TXNs for a particular
> wallet, you would need the history at least as far back as that
> wallet's creation.

"Of course" he says again, once again proclaiming orthodoxies from
the tower of certainty, boldly plonking his sole remaining neurone
into the puddle (ocean) of ego, then clamours for another brown paper
bag to hide 'is sorry arse within.

In the light of such profound "knowledge", always remember to ignore
almost everything I say :(

<shuffles off, red faced, to make a coffee>


> Being a DC dullit, I am not able to answer the question "is it
> necessary to validate a wallet's entire history (or even further
> back), just in order to safely transact with that wallet?", though it
> "feels" to me that it should not be necessary to validate entire
> wallet history.
> 
> The thinking/ debate processes are straightforward to walk through -
> there appears to be a genuine problem with DC legacy (BTC) having
> sold out...
> 


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list