Looking for feedback on my UTXO model and address format

[Francesco Ferraro]

Hi everyone,

I'm continuing to improve my hobby blockchain project written in Python.

At the moment I'm implementing a Bitcoin-style UTXO model. The node can already return both balance and UTXO information through the API.

Example:

GET /balance/<address>
{
  "balance": 2050000000
}

GET /utxo/<address>
{
  "utxos": [
    {
      "address": "F369-5538-4066-7499-9028-0027",
      "amount": 2050000000,
      "spent": false,
      "txid": "dbd1af28d5894c29ed2231230e1e526d3995585c8b5180b8a94d6a983e05b152",
      "vout": 0
    }
  ]
}

I intentionally keep the structure simple while I learn how Bitcoin's UTXO model works.

I'd like to ask for feedback:

1. Does this UTXO structure look reasonable?
2. Am I missing any important fields?
3. Is there anything you would recommend changing before I continue with transaction validation and mining?

I'm still learning, so any suggestions are appreciated.

Thank you.

[OsaiEmma]

I'd like to ask for feedback:

1. Does this UTXO structure look reasonable?
2. Am I missing any important fields?
3. Is there anything you would recommend changing before I continue with transaction validation and mining?

I'm still learning, so any suggestions are appreciated.

Thank you.

1) Yes it does to me but with a little tweak: I'd recommend you remove this

Code:

 "spent": false,

The reason is that it feels redundant. This is an unspent transaction output (UTXO) meaning it is unspent; spent will never be true, so there is no need for it.

2) Yea, I'd suggest block_height for proper identification.

3) Just the 2 above, I know some other members might have more suggestions.