Thanks @gmaxwell for that explanation, really interesting.
I wonder if even on chains like Grin it was possible to store (much) more data than in this experiment, taking into account the possibility to store data in "real" keys, at least with miner cooperation (driven by financial incentives). I don't have enough knowledge about Grin however, and as there a big part of the transactions are pruned it may be indeed much more difficult.
I wonder if even on chains like Grin it was possible to store (much) more data than in this experiment, taking into account the possibility to store data in "real" keys, at least with miner cooperation (driven by financial incentives). I don't have enough knowledge about Grin however, and as there a big part of the transactions are pruned it may be indeed much more difficult.
Quote from: stwenhao
Read about proposals like SwiftSync: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/FpSWUxItXQs
Very interesting link! However I think it would also not be able to cope with the "data on fake addresses spam" problem. I guess just these unspendable UTXOs would delay syncing, and from what I have understood about the matter, without additional data (like a signature) it wouldn't be possible to prove that an UTXO is unspendable. Correct me if I'm wrong