📅 Original date posted:2014-12-12
📝 Original message:>
> "Secure" and "client side validation" don't really belong in the same
> sentence, do they?
>
Well, client-side validation is mathematically secure, while SPV is
economically secure.
I.e. it is secure if you make several assumptions about economics of the
whole thing.
In my opinion the former is transfinitely more secure than the later.
But it's more of a philosophical question, sure.
The good thing about PoW-based consensus is that it is robust against
version inconsistencies and various accidents of this nature up to a
certain degree. But you hardly can depend on that:
You know, The Great Fork of 2013 was resolved through human intervention,
Bitcoin nodes were not smart enough to detect that something is going awry
on their own.
Naive proof-of-publication is very fragile in that respect, but you can
easily bring back robustness.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141212/76a5cbeb/attachment.html>;
Alex Mizrahi [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sw…pul5t
2023-06-07 15:27:51
in reply to nevent1q…lek2
Author Public Key
npub1swfeusu3ua9trup00qcnrgc2yndksyvgku4epk5tec7u4fmrez6qxpul5tPublished at
2023-06-07 15:27:51Event JSON
{
"id": "aefe0776cf4ff8c0294695c13b896dee779fe6da7e7463252da3e83f30e44958",
"pubkey": "83939e4391e74ab1f02f783131a30a24db681188b72b90da8bce3dcaa763c8b4",
"created_at": 1686151671,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cbb6daec6856f60055a526b76fd33d0c1eb21b2008c1cd922079e9662701bfc1",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b9649152f6be63b6c58368f89ab211372c1ea7aef49f2cf3483acecb7d3d85d5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"959a9c23e3a17ee9df362d7f12c50fbdefd93d94208519d2110bc65e3e9ed411"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-12-12\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e \"Secure\" and \"client side validation\" don't really belong in the same\n\u003e sentence, do they?\n\u003e\n\nWell, client-side validation is mathematically secure, while SPV is\neconomically secure.\nI.e. it is secure if you make several assumptions about economics of the\nwhole thing.\n\nIn my opinion the former is transfinitely more secure than the later.\nBut it's more of a philosophical question, sure.\n\nThe good thing about PoW-based consensus is that it is robust against\nversion inconsistencies and various accidents of this nature up to a\ncertain degree. But you hardly can depend on that:\nYou know, The Great Fork of 2013 was resolved through human intervention,\nBitcoin nodes were not smart enough to detect that something is going awry\non their own.\n\nNaive proof-of-publication is very fragile in that respect, but you can\neasily bring back robustness.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141212/76a5cbeb/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "86f90214e7475d2badff1fce8a141005ba164ca0935433f7b34951c1d902a2eb0a25039373be229dba9594754e4973e04ae507460f89b2c96da3e3cdc8dee8a5"
}