μα τα περισσότερα από αυτά για το blocksize είναι. Κυρίως το wimblewimble μειώνει δραματικά τον αποθηκευτικό χώρο
So I just have the coinbase inputs which don't need to be encoded; what I give the person is a list of block headers, a list of currently unspent outputs, and their range proofs, and their excess values, because if we could aggregate them in any othe rway then ... but for each transaction, that's a pubkey ad a signature that's like 100 bytes. So with the stuff in the Voldemort paper with no extensions, everything is compressed to 100 bytes. In bitcoin where we have 150 million transactions and historic blockchain data and the UTXO set and the range proofs. If we had confidential transactions in bitcoin, the CT size would exceed the entire size of the current chain, but not by much. With CT, in bitcoin, we would have 1 terabyte of blockchain data by now, if bitcoin had CT from day one. It's a lot of data for a new verifier to download. In mimblewimble you wouldn't have to do that; you only need range proofs on the unspent outputs. It means that the data scales with the number of blocks and transactions grows linearly, but it's a very small amount of data. The bulk of the data would be UTXOs, which can shrink, because you can create a transaction that shrinks the total UTXO set. So in the mimblewimble chain, in addition to whatever anti-DoS resource limits, you might want to limi the UTXO set size, and then incentivize with a fee market for transactions that shrink the UTXO set size. There's unbounded growth in the linear part, but it's very very slow unbounded growth there. So even as the chain goes on for three years and decades, it's very slow growth. It's very exciting
.
Εδώ που τα λέμε δεν φταίνε οι developer αν γενικά η τεχνολογία του Bitcoin είναι τόσο δύσκολη και ακατανόητη για τον πολύ κόσμο που οι λύσεις που προτείνουν είναι ακατανόητες και για τον πολύ τον κόσμο και αποδέχονται εύκολα προτάσεις και λύσεις από άσχετος και ούτε καν developer όπως είναι ο Roger Ver.
