merkle tree algorithm in toolkit

[toast]

Less clever would be to be sloppy with your memory and do some extra copies. Standard vs non-standard as in the OP

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[bytemaster]

Are you referring to this?
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/blob/ab177ba65f4355af9805b4e7451ed9f7dba8a0b7/libraries/blockchain/block.cpp#L49

I think that's just a clever way of doing the standard merkle tree. Notice "2*sizeof(uint160)". Your interpreted simplification effectively doesn't include t1 or t3.

Is there some other way to do it that is less clever or more standard?

[bytemaster]

Are you referring to this?
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/blob/ab177ba65f4355af9805b4e7451ed9f7dba8a0b7/libraries/blockchain/block.cpp#L49

I think that's just a clever way of doing the standard merkle tree. Notice "2*sizeof(uint160)". Your interpreted simplification effectively doesn't include t1 or t3.

2*sizeof(uint160)

oh, i overlooked the highlighted code segment,agree that it is a clever way to implement the standard merkle tree. it makes the code elegant and easier to understand.

Thanks for reviewing the code and looking for bugs as this level even if it was a false alarm

[crazybit]

Are you referring to this?
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/blob/ab177ba65f4355af9805b4e7451ed9f7dba8a0b7/libraries/blockchain/block.cpp#L49

I think that's just a clever way of doing the standard merkle tree. Notice "2*sizeof(uint160)". Your interpreted simplification effectively doesn't include t1 or t3.

2*sizeof(uint160)

oh, i overlooked the highlighted code segment,agree that it is a clever way to implement the standard merkle tree. it makes the code elegant and easier to understand.

[toast]

Are you referring to this?
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/blob/ab177ba65f4355af9805b4e7451ed9f7dba8a0b7/libraries/blockchain/block.cpp#L49

I think that's just a clever way of doing the standard merkle tree. Notice "2*sizeof(uint160)". Your interpreted simplification effectively doesn't include t1 or t3.

[HackFisher]

layer_two.push_back(  small_hash( (char*)&layer_one, 2*sizeof(uint160) ) );

I checked the implement, which seems not the same with your simplification? How did you get that?

[crazybit]

     root
      / \
   A      B
  / \    / \
 t1 t2 t3 t4


A=hash(t1,t2)
B=hash(t3,t4)
Root=hash(A,B)

presented above is the typical merkle tree algorithm, but seems the merkle  tree algorithm in bitshares toolkit is simplified as below(if i my understanding is not wrong),what is the purpose?is it still work properly after simplified ?and any benefit from the simplification?

A=hash(t2)
B=hash(t4)
Root=hash(B)