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 0456E1EFA for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:37:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8327E2CA for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:37:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iofh134 with SMTP id h134so126213427iof.0 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:37:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=3QJcJgdEOUNhSGlfh7sJ9Hj5SN+TrSylNq/DJlPZEE8=; b=e5bpcEZFVQ06LWGYiGVzorVWm/qXDmqsDRlPEGnHqq/TBajUjL5C2th3KLv37AzA4r QkWlrIuiZKaVcldubHbP1PzClRm1rrDWMKnncGbJxj0a1V/9diWah+cBt12ky6KHotUU +M6KIF4OPMfNxVrqQQCqrW/bnCmGv51oWPi+z4ZYT0IUBOP/UbnuWFybDz7YnYxd2cG5 G7iAA+FoS3hi0EY5S8kFTzqzUb4s15KULeaGG4ltYe2oAWVBxxDoVtuD/p7LCErWH81p Lti53W/XJTGr+4VX4v6eyIMarjcqNrfpk+nRpBg4bdF53muDnTXwVl53SLjuGi3p8X7r 8Cpg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.13.75 with SMTP id 72mr16932130ion.75.1443803827947; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.19.30 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:37:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:37:07 +0000 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,PLING_QUERY,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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!] X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:37:09 -0000 On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote: > At that time nobody used the term "SPV wallet" to refer to what apps like > BreadWallet or libraries like bitcoinj do. Satoshi used the term "client > only mode", Jeff was calling them "headers only client" etc. So I said, I'm > going to call them SPV wallets after the section of the whitepaper that most > precisely describes their operation. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=125.msg1149#msg1149 (a full year before your post, as someone else had already responded to you on Reddit; client mode was just what implementation inside Bitcoin was called) But this is silly. The only point I was making was that when you were referring to the limitations of BitcoinJ which would not generalize to not state it as a property of SPV I think it is preferable to make that decision,especially when it would not generalize to ones that implemented everything described in section 8, or even just more complete checks on the data they were already receiving. Who coined the tern is irrelevant to that (although you indisputably did not use even the abbreviation before others). Jtimon's later post on the misuse of fallacious arguments should have been enough that I shouldn't have to spell this out.