Joel Joonatan Kaartinen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š
Original date posted:2011-12-22 šļø Summary of this message: Nodes joining a ...
š
Original date posted:2011-12-22
šļø Summary of this message: Nodes joining a network have low cost, but not checking transactions can lead to faulty work, making it important to know which nodes are checking.
š Original message:On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 11:52 +0000, Andy Parkins wrote:
> Why should they have to? Joining the network as a node is very low cost to
> the other nodes. You can't force any node not to be lazy, since their option
> is to disconnect themselves. As to maliciousness, that is defended against
> because when a node negative announces a transaction, that transaction is
> going to be checked (note that there is still no implicit trust) -- if a node
> is incorrectly negative-announcing then it can justifiably be kicked.
a node that is not doing any checking themselves can not reliably
forward failed verifications without getting the blame for doing faulty
work. Those nodes would then have the incentive not to relay the failed
verifications. This ends up making it important to know which nodes will
be checking transactions or not so you don't isolate yourself from other
nodes that are also checking transactions.
- Joel
Published at
2023-06-07 02:50:42Event JSON
{
"id": "28f3a33100d32a40b80d7593a0e4e2d136b6bb90167a7d164c32745830098d28",
"pubkey": "d52a1b72551bba47beb14639a1b6f5e6cd98603ecbaaa6ab02031708d9cc4473",
"created_at": 1686106242,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4af0205fae641367dcfd78e02a7a0b6f75f880a1f702affe5d70f7b792eb8207",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"922a700c5e96256d35f1c377948407b259c02d1050c6d78d02cddeeb5983e738",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"99bec497728c848e65549d1a5257d08de97621edcb4b77073269a45dac708d59"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2011-12-22\nšļø Summary of this message: Nodes joining a network have low cost, but not checking transactions can lead to faulty work, making it important to know which nodes are checking.\nš Original message:On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 11:52 +0000, Andy Parkins wrote:\n\u003e Why should they have to? Joining the network as a node is very low cost to \n\u003e the other nodes. You can't force any node not to be lazy, since their option \n\u003e is to disconnect themselves. As to maliciousness, that is defended against \n\u003e because when a node negative announces a transaction, that transaction is \n\u003e going to be checked (note that there is still no implicit trust) -- if a node \n\u003e is incorrectly negative-announcing then it can justifiably be kicked.\n\na node that is not doing any checking themselves can not reliably\nforward failed verifications without getting the blame for doing faulty\nwork. Those nodes would then have the incentive not to relay the failed\nverifications. This ends up making it important to know which nodes will\nbe checking transactions or not so you don't isolate yourself from other\nnodes that are also checking transactions.\n\n- Joel",
"sig": "00f02f01443e037bbd96ac5f1dcb9d95dc733fa2837bd757d3d10b5a394eeff821988ef63923d95fe1b844573a669d2bc16ad6c7598194039fbcb75c375747ec"
}