Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WIP] docs: update documentation #324

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sloorush
Copy link
Contributor

@sloorush sloorush commented Sep 27, 2021

Tasks

  • Explanation of utreexo
  • How to run + FAQ for first-timers
  • Style guide (similar to the one that already exists)
  • Contributing guidelines
  • Featured Links (like all good articles/resources/videos/podcasts for utreexo)
  • Details about UTCD and dergoegge/bitcoin.
  • Improved Readme

readme.md Outdated
---
## Importing Utreexo
The raw accumulator functions are in package accumulator. This is a general accumulator and is not bitcoin specific. For Bitcoin specific accumulator, look to the csn and bridgenode packages.
Currently, transactions specify inputs and outputs, and verifying an input requires you to know the whole state of the system. With Utreexo, the holder of funds maintains a proof that the funds exist and provides that proof at spending time to the other nodes. These proofs are compact (under 1KB) but represent the utreexo model’s main downside; they present an additional data transmission overhead that allows a much smaller state.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sometimes the proofs are big. The accumulator state (under a kilobyte) is small but proofs can get big so I'd get rid of the part that says "These proofs are compact (under 1KB)".

readme.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
- change UTreeXO to utreexo
- remove proofs under 1kb
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Improvements: Documentation
2 participants