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 35ECA6C for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:38:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148113.authsmtp.com (outmail148113.authsmtp.com [62.13.148.113]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C3B192 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:38:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232]) by punt21.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v0SIMsaP028120; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:22:54 GMT Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v0SIMqZ4045432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:22:53 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE19C4009A; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:22:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:22:25 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <201701270107.01092.luke@dashjr.org> <201701270414.18553.luke@dashjr.org> <20170127212810.GA5856@nex> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="----5BWSCRGOTHE0AH6FU8X8MC3D5QV2DE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512" To: Andrew Johnson , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev , Bitcoin Dev , Christian Decker From: Peter Todd Message-ID: <20E4FCBB-E841-4F8C-9906-743E4A023259@petertodd.org> X-Server-Quench: c8d29c03-e586-11e6-829f-00151795d556 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdAoUElQaAgsB AmEbWlxeUl97XGA7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUgULeGFA bBoeVhx2dAcIeX92 YU8sDXgPXk0pdUVg F0tcE3AHZDJmdWgd WRZFdwNVdQJNdxoR b1V5GhFYa3VsNCMk FAgyOXU9MCtqYBhV WAwAZVIbW0oFGSQ/ AgoPGTwzEEFNbQQL NHQA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs 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: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:38:36 -0000 ------5BWSCRGOTHE0AH6FU8X8MC3D5QV2DE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On 27 January 2017 15:53:02 GMT-08:00, Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev wrote: >I'd also like to point out to Luke that Satoshi envisioned most full >nodes >running in data centers in the white paper, not every single user needs >to >run a full node to use bitcoin=2E Not to present this as an argument >from >authority, but rather to remind us what the intention of the system was >to >be(p2p cash, not a settlement layer only afforded by the wealthiest and >largest value transactions)=2E That a lot of people want to continue to >move >in that direction shouldn't be a surprise=2E Satoshi also thought that SPV clients would be able to use fraud proofs (c= alled "alerts" in the white paper) to detect fraudulent behavior by miners,= and thus not have to completely trust those nodes in those datacenters=2E = Unfortunately it turns out that fraud proofs are both a very difficult engi= neering challenge to implement, and also offer much less security than once= thought=2E In fact, as per Satoshi's vision, SPV clients don't currently e= xist; what's called SPV isn't what Satoshi was envisioning=2E Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that aspects of Satoshi's visio= n for Bitcoin turned out to be wrong: the white paper also refers to the "l= ongest chain" rather than most-work chain, something that had to be fixed i= n what's technically a hardfork after Bitcoin's initial release=2E ------5BWSCRGOTHE0AH6FU8X8MC3D5QV2DE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQE9BAABCgAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJYjOFi AAoJEGOZARBE6K+yz4MH/jwEkiU8OGBNm/EZYonY7qTIYA6ek4I8jjwvYbUS+79h 8ZNswhz3JWIbevup0RwFhwC948m3jLVH8QvsMr+QDQqo/Dvsq9uiiqg3l/6BnauV 4dZwjCyuIY3kWPO1LAkc1gJ7vRz8/SYwHaF0Oc4zZmQjGLLzfUj4YUCA+QgSetmd Ch8B9Iqjc8xIIqN1ocyihDqM/TUJd4bjhQoqJtIIl90ivEmHsJPbVdOhOMZ/bsMd ySR6JMvRaVKYDNKdnc246Z22bPh0XSkH4Qt8rxHZumeM0OvW9Mmd3YAGCQrCUyd+ aWvuZmMb8cc1E1m2SlWDmH4jDHDXdinIESYwcgyFEOE= =x9DN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------5BWSCRGOTHE0AH6FU8X8MC3D5QV2DE--