Author: Jorge Timón 2014-03-22 20:12:20
Published on: 2014-03-22T20:12:20+00:00
Peter Todd had shared his thoughts on UTXO, mentioning that the entire set of UTXOs need not be stored for eternity and that limiting UTXO commitments in a reasonable way would be a better option. While theoretical scalability improvements are possible, he did not consider them as solid arguments in favor of supporting proof of publication. He proposed a service bit flag and preferential peering to make it easy to get non-standard transactions to miners, but added that it was vulnerable to sybil attacks if done naively. Peter Todd expressed concern about proof-of-publication applications and argued that OP_RETURN didn't give any reason to use it over other data encoding methods. He mentioned Mark Friedenbach’s proposal of storing hashes or hash root to implement proof of publication in a manner that allows full nodes to ignore published data until it is sufficiently buried. Peter Todd differed with others on the economics of attacking merge-mined chains, emphasizing on security against economically irrational attackers. He opined that merged mined separated chains were more secure than non-merged mined separated chains.While advising Mastercoin, Counterparty, Colored Coins, etc., Peter Todd suggested that they should design their systems keeping in mind the robustness of security offered by proof-of-publication on the Bitcoin blockchain. He stated that these applications could afford to pay higher transaction fees, and that the alternatives had much more dubious security properties and no security at all. However, he agreed to disagree on additional non-validated data in the main chain vs. merged mined chains as the best way to implement additional features.
Updated on: 2023-06-08T15:32:10.154308+00:00