<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Dynamic Merkle B-tree with Efficient Proofs · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2006.01994/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2006.01994/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Dynamic Merkle B-tree with Efficient Proofs — mentioned by AR_1</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24594787</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2006.01994:24594787</guid><pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2020 22:32:33 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;@JJ big fan of yours and ideas behind Urkel. Now in C it’ll be very performant. Likewise, I’ve done testing with SMT and we were hitting the same bottlenecks. It will be interesting to test this implementation. We recently published a research paper where we propose a use of dynamic B+ Tree with efficient proof sizes. Dynamic Merkle B-Tree with Efficient Proofs: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.01994&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2006.01994/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item></channel></rss>
