📅 Original date posted:2012-01-02
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Elden Tyrell <tyrell.elden at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-01-02 05:31:19 -0800, Christian Decker said:
>> Later full blocks would be required to detect usable inputs for future
>> outgoing transactions.
>
> Er, yes, this is what I meant; I guess I should have been more specific.
>
> So, a paranoid client cannot confirm reciept of coins until it has an
> unstubbed copy of the entire chain. It can do other things (like send
> coins) using a stubbed chain, but it needs the whole unstubbed chain in
> order to be sure that incoming coins haven't already been spent.
>
> Thanks for confirming this.
Er, no— if a node controls the private keys for a transaction, and
that transaction makes it into the chain then it can safely assume
that its unspent (at least once its buried a few blocks into the
chain). This is the essence of a SPV node.
What it can't do is perform this function for txn which aren't its
own. Though the system could be extended in a compatible manner to
make this possible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21995.0
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 02:54:30
in reply to nevent1q…clwz
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 02:54:30Event JSON
{
"id": "b43696c04e295ac984efb6502f454d238780a87bdcda0180e961292ce6279cc3",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686106470,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"67d9df9b422f0a3c9a61b90726cf3ac3535a5c46f83503e498da2c23e50d0b04",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"885f9155097c9327885d1bd38f375852cf1206d6275a875023bf18d53741d1a9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cb909578c1c5b5fa9fb52a030ac64f353e2d2e7a9376a66f1e78998016d23500"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-01-02\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Elden Tyrell \u003ctyrell.elden at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On 2012-01-02 05:31:19 -0800, Christian Decker said:\n\u003e\u003e Later full blocks would be required to detect usable inputs for future\n\u003e\u003e outgoing transactions.\n\u003e\n\u003e Er, yes, this is what I meant; I guess I should have been more specific.\n\u003e\n\u003e So, a paranoid client cannot confirm reciept of coins until it has an\n\u003e unstubbed copy of the entire chain. It can do other things (like send\n\u003e coins) using a stubbed chain, but it needs the whole unstubbed chain in\n\u003e order to be sure that incoming coins haven't already been spent.\n\u003e\n\u003e Thanks for confirming this.\n\n\nEr, no— if a node controls the private keys for a transaction, and\nthat transaction makes it into the chain then it can safely assume\nthat its unspent (at least once its buried a few blocks into the\nchain). This is the essence of a SPV node.\n\nWhat it can't do is perform this function for txn which aren't its\nown. Though the system could be extended in a compatible manner to\nmake this possible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21995.0",
"sig": "d2cd877cd97e451a87fc0e44d3b0da3336fe4304378a3ed50f0164f021f6f1ff427466a8c605f93c2e6a81d0fb06079bfe791f3b33e798e6e415355dc984c3cb"
}