I’m at present learning how bitcoin works and the motivations behind the design choices. I perceive that the best way transactions are despatched works primarily like this (appropriate me if I am mistaken)

  1. Every transaction wants a sender tackle, receiver tackle and signature (for authorization)
  2. Every transaction wants an inventory of unspent transactions despatched to the sender tackle to ensure that the sender to show he has sufficient cash to have the ability to afford the transaction he needs to ship.
  3. To ensure that the miners to confirm the transaction, they should affirm that the unspent transactions are actual by in search of them within the blockchain. This may be made efficient by storing transactions in merkle timber, in any other case it will be very costly for the miners to seek out the unspent transactions.

It appears to me that a greater approach of engaging in the identical activity could be for every miner to seperately retailer an inventory of all addresses coin-balances that are used to confirm that the sender has sufficient cash to afford the transaction. The balances must be up to date everytime a brand new block is mined. This technique would make the protocol rather a lot easier as a result of transactions would not want to return with a bunch of unspent transactions, and every block would not have to generate or retailer any merkle timber.

Are there any extreme disadvantages to the strategy I described above? Is there some safety danger or wouldn’t it someway be very costly for the miners?

Håkan Troberg is a brand new contributor to this website. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Try our Code of Conduct.