Timeline for Would there be a problem introducing opening-balance transactions in bitcoin?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2017 at 8:35 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @croraf The ledger does not need to be restarted -- data that is no longer usable (such as spent balances) just fall out of the ledger by being no longer referenced. If you want to understand a particular ledger, you just walk its Merkle tree -- the tree of all the data reachable from that particular ledger header. | |
| Nov 2, 2017 at 8:34 | comment | added | croraf | And the ledger does not grow indefinitely in Ripple but is restarted from time to time? | |
| Nov 2, 2017 at 8:33 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @croraf It's a little bit difficult to explain. Ripple doesn't really have UTXOs, but it does have some state that persists from ledger to ledger unless it changes (such as what accounts have what balances). The hash of the Merkle tree of this state is included in the header for each ledger. So you can walk the state tree of ledger 3,000,000 without any historical data at all just by following the tree of hashes. | |
| Nov 2, 2017 at 8:31 | comment | added | croraf | So this ledger restart is done in Ripple? And is done using UTXO hash? | |
| Nov 2, 2017 at 7:55 | comment | added | David Schwartz | It is feasible. As I said, it only wasn't done because of an oversight. | |
| Nov 2, 2017 at 0:31 | comment | added | croraf | Can you explain why opening-balance is not feasible to do or point to discussion? | |
| Nov 1, 2017 at 21:22 | history | answered | David Schwartz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |