Has it been considered to add a UTXO checkpoint transaction Here's how it would work
Someone submits a transaction that contains a large fee and a hash of the UTXO set along with block height as opcode parameter Miners refuse to include this transaction unless the hash of the UTXO set matches Because performing that hash is expensive, it should have an extremely high cost factor, equivalent to say a 100KB transaction or something These checkpoints are explicitly for the purpose of fast-synchronizing extremely lightweight nodes. It's reasonable to refuse to use a checkpoint that isn't at least several months old. It should be easy for anyone to find a sufficiently aged checkpoint and synchronize from that point onward. Or is this just a solution without a problem? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAJowKgLC9LdAu2mrQB-yW2Qoa3jU3BwZyL%2BQT4WW8f257Jkfhw%40mail.gmail.com.
