public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] About Compact SPV proofs via block header commitments
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:29:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <535E900A.90407@monetize.io> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <535E6681.6000509@certimix.com>

On 04/28/2014 07:32 AM, Sergio Lerner wrote:
> So you agree that:  you need a periodic connection to a honest node, but
> during an attack you may loose that connection. This is the assumption
> we should be working on, and my use case (described in
> http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/smartspv-a-better-simplified-payment-verification-for-smartphones/)
> assumes that.

No, that's sortof tangential. What you are solving is some higher level
application on top of SPV proofs, compact or otherwise. SPV proofs have
many broad applications, such as 2-way pegs where proof-of-work is used
to reach consensus over the most-work side-chain header, and a non-51%
attack is detectable from observed difficulty and interblock times. Do
you need an honest peer to learn about the best chain? Yes. Do you need
to *trust* that you have an honest peer? No, because a non-51% attack
against you is probabilistically detectable with existing tools.

Maybe SmartSPV is useful, maybe not. The application domain is not
something I've been concerned with in the past. But what you describe is
a higher-level protocol that uses block headers to determine which chain
to trust. My simple point from the start has been that you can use
back-link commitments and compact SPV proofs to accomplish what you want
fewer messages, less bandwidth, and equal security. The two proposals
are not in conflict with each other.



      reply	other threads:[~2014-04-28 17:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-04-27  1:08 [Bitcoin-development] About Compact SPV proofs via block header commitments Sergio Lerner
2014-04-27  1:43 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-27  2:39   ` Sergio Lerner
2014-04-27  6:43     ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-27 12:36       ` Sergio Lerner
2014-04-27 17:05         ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-28 14:32           ` Sergio Lerner
2014-04-28 17:29             ` Mark Friedenbach [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=535E900A.90407@monetize.io \
    --to=mark@monetize.io \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox