From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A4651A70 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 03:02:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA737C3 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 03:02:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D04CC38A0D8B; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 03:01:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:190404:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::gbCYu8B2JK+/o58L:aJeCO X-Hashcash: 1:25:190404:dscotese@litmocracy.com::kL92E+lDnerfI6Cy:ccXWZ X-Hashcash: 1:25:190404:ethan.scruples@gmail.com::OPVqXPXWZlFhqnaw:c+=kl From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Dave Scotese Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 03:01:00 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20100827.1168748) References: In-Reply-To: X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201904040301.01074.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 05:05:16 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] assumeutxo and UTXO snapshots X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 03:02:53 -0000 On Wednesday 03 April 2019 21:39:32 Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Luke's comment that it could "lead to users trusting third parties (like > developers) way too much" is pertinent too, but I think an honest abatement > of that concern is impossible without teaching everyone C++. Learning C++ is something within everyone's capability. Even people who do not wish to learn it can hire someone to perform review for them. > "Developers" > as an open group (anyone can fork the github repo, find a problem, and make > an issue) deserve the trust we put in them, and that's because they're > accountable (any such error found in the repo will have been put there by > someone). No, we are not. We explicitly disclaim any warranty, and do not want your trust. > The same thing goes for making it possible to download (*not > just the compiled software*, but) the entire UTXO Set if a commitment of it > is hardcoded into the software, as James suggests. Verifying a UTXO set commitment is impossible short of a real IBD. It's not even comparable. > We all trust > "developers" like that, and it's okay. No, it isn't okay. There are plenty of fiat options if you want a trust-based currency. Bitcoin is supposed to be something more than that. Luke