Ethereum does not have UTXOs nor does eMunie for that matter, account/address balances are recorded and credited/debited as per transactions they make and receive.
Without the UTXO overhead, double spend prevention across partitions is much easier to achieve and can be done in an efficient manner.
I mentioned in the video that Ethereum is using an account balances design.
There can't be any double-spend across partitions in the design I described in the video.
I understand if you want to allow spending across partitions, this complicates design issues. I had mentioned upthread that I deal with that in my design by requiring confirmation of such to wait for block confirmations. Where spending within partitions is instant in my design.
I think it is difficult to talk about every possible design variant in one video. I was already going off on too many injected tangents. That is not to say I have envisioned your design per se.
Thanks.
Hmm I must have missed where you mentioned that :|
Still, if you know that ETH is using balances rather than UTXOs, doesn't that mark the whole argument against partitions when using UTXOs redundant (at least as far as transactions are concerned)?
The points made about why it can't function are not applicable in the case of ETH anyway, and apply only to UTXO based block chains.
I explained that asset transfers (crypto currency, etc) are compatible with partitions. I explained that scripts are not and explained the distinction in terms of external chaos that destroys the Nash equilibrium.
I don't think UXTO or account balances has anything to do with why asset transfers are compatible with partitions while scripts are not.
I am very sleepy now. That is it for me today.