mimblewimble team mailing list archive

[John Tromp <john.tromp@xxxxxxxxx>]

dear Ethan,

> I can see how aggregate block is confusing terminology. I'm going to
> avoid using it in the future.
>
> What I meant was that the blocks B1+B2 are sent together and that
> possible cut-throughs have already been applied in both blocks.

You can not apply any changes to existing blocks, as that will
invalidate their PoW.
I think what you're trying to do is construct some set of kernels and utxo set
that is claimed to summarize a valid block history when in actuality
there was no such history.

Can you show in detail what that final claimed utxo set looks like,
how it is consistent with the set of kernels of valid blocks, but
different from the result
of processing all transactions from those blocks?

Btw, one thing that confuses me in your argument is that you say that
cut-through can eliminate double spending. I don't see how that happens.
If tx1 double spends an output, then tx1 combined with later tx will still
doublespend that output. And tc1 combined with earlier tx will result
in earlier doublespends?!

regards,
-John