Topic: Efficient authenticated dictionaries and lightweight fullnodes (Read 950 times)
I have no idea this nonsense you are speaking please elaborate specifics. NXT made a big mistake by switching names and using new coin. I was big in NXT. I sold all of it and assets too at just got out before the image bullcrap. And got free Arder coin that I sold immediately also. RIP NXT it was till they screwed it up
Is this not what https://wavesplatform.com is doing aside from a full crowdfunding platform ? I also know they will have fiat conversions utilizing tokens. They will also Have Incent Customer Rewards Platform https://incentloyalty.com. Price is almost doubled. Waves will be amazing
That seems like a marketing pitch
Talking about Waves, from paper, I think, Waves will do scalable multi-asset system where only miners are watching over full state of an asset(who's holding how much), and even a miner can track not all the assets (a miner cannot include transactions into block for assets not being tracked though). Ordinary asset holders (fullnodes/lightnodes) can get security guarantees without storing the data. I don't know about implementation details though.
Is this not what https://wavesplatform.com is doing aside from a full crowdfunding platform ? I also know they will have fiat conversions utilizing tokens. They will also Have Incent Customer Rewards Platform https://incentloyalty.com. Price is almost doubled. Waves will be amazing
The idea that it is possible to get full-node security guarantees without holding the full state has been proposed before -- for example, by Bill White's paper "A Theory of Lightweight Cryptocurrency Ledgers" ( https://github.com/kushti/ledgertheory/blob/master/lightcrypto.pdf ), which the first one I know with this proposal.
Our contribution is developing this idea further and playing with possible authenticated dictionary designs to find a most efficient solution. We propose that only miners store a state (the UTXO set in case of Bitcoin) in RAM(we can assume miners can buy gigs/tens of gigs of RAM easily). They are providing proofs for state transformation correctness within transactions (or a batch proof within block). Other nodes are just verifying proofs. The verification process is fast(it is about just hashing) and consumes minimum RAM(no random disk IO as we have now with full state storing on commodity hardware e.g. 4GB RAM laptop where only 1GB could be given to a fullnode daemon). However, transactions are becoming bigger, so throughput is needed to be increased with some other proposal(there are a lot of them).
details are in the paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/994 . would be happy to get feedback (please don't think it is a concrete proposal for Bitcoin though. We know that Bitcoin capabilities to upgrade are more than limited).
Our contribution is developing this idea further and playing with possible authenticated dictionary designs to find a most efficient solution. We propose that only miners store a state (the UTXO set in case of Bitcoin) in RAM(we can assume miners can buy gigs/tens of gigs of RAM easily). They are providing proofs for state transformation correctness within transactions (or a batch proof within block). Other nodes are just verifying proofs. The verification process is fast(it is about just hashing) and consumes minimum RAM(no random disk IO as we have now with full state storing on commodity hardware e.g. 4GB RAM laptop where only 1GB could be given to a fullnode daemon). However, transactions are becoming bigger, so throughput is needed to be increased with some other proposal(there are a lot of them).
details are in the paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/994 . would be happy to get feedback (please don't think it is a concrete proposal for Bitcoin though. We know that Bitcoin capabilities to upgrade are more than limited).
Jump to: