📅 Original date posted:2014-04-26
📝 Original message:El 26/04/2014 10:43 p.m., Mark Friedenbach escribió:
> Sergio,
>
> First of all, let's define what an SPV proof is: it is a succinct
> sequence of bits which can be transmitted as part of a non-interactive
> protocol that convincingly establishes for a client without access to
> the block chain that for some block B, B has an ancestor A at some
> specified height and work distance back, and the cost of creating a
> false proof is at least as much work as it claims to represent.
Ok. I was thinking with another definition SPV proof.
For me a SPV proof is a sequence of bits which can be transmitted as
part of a non-interactive protocol that convincingly establishes for a
client without access to the block chain that a block B is part of the
best-chain.
I understand that SPV nodes require SPV proofs as defined in my
definition, but I can't realize how to prove that SPV nodes require SPV
proofs under your definition. So your definition sounds to me like one
possible solution, but not the need.
Is your definition something well-established in the community?
Sergio Lerner [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vr…nc7jf
2023-06-07 15:20:25
in reply to nevent1q…sa7w
Author Public Key
npub1vrm6r7z5yreclgndkf90fqesh5vqpmfmaucks32zv0w0emmz4r8qznc7jfPublished at
2023-06-07 15:20:25Event JSON
{
"id": "0a3031e8409159c84f1a4a37135a4f0452b6c738654cc750f11c617126bcba06",
"pubkey": "60f7a1f85420f38fa26db24af48330bd1800ed3bef3168454263dcfcef62a8ce",
"created_at": 1686151225,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"52601dddf7ab03b9f5df6b1d060ac7041d101e77a4d0b631e8e74b466abf4568",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d972ef02bed8d212fcaf3ec08f2e2e7a198bc909a8c03a9ffe28b70a07151a3b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-26\n📝 Original message:El 26/04/2014 10:43 p.m., Mark Friedenbach escribió:\n\u003e Sergio,\n\u003e\n\u003e First of all, let's define what an SPV proof is: it is a succinct\n\u003e sequence of bits which can be transmitted as part of a non-interactive\n\u003e protocol that convincingly establishes for a client without access to\n\u003e the block chain that for some block B, B has an ancestor A at some\n\u003e specified height and work distance back, and the cost of creating a\n\u003e false proof is at least as much work as it claims to represent.\nOk. I was thinking with another definition SPV proof.\n\nFor me a SPV proof is a sequence of bits which can be transmitted as\npart of a non-interactive protocol that convincingly establishes for a\nclient without access to the block chain that a block B is part of the\nbest-chain.\n\nI understand that SPV nodes require SPV proofs as defined in my\ndefinition, but I can't realize how to prove that SPV nodes require SPV\nproofs under your definition. So your definition sounds to me like one\npossible solution, but not the need.\n \nIs your definition something well-established in the community?",
"sig": "27e013741690a825cb4668b8247be50fc7a5908bc79ffb7e3e008e0f68655e517b2749c730f731c9046c212e5eb9a5c79434d4ca083fd5055949c3b1e97e6ede"
}