Interesting work. 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@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 > data). > > 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. > > best, > Tomas > > > > 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 > of > > > using an index of unspent outputs, double spends are verified by using > a > > > 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 > available > > > 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 > > > to...@bitcrust.org > > > Bitcrust > > > _______________________________________________ > > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
