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 7645120CB for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:10:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yk0-f172.google.com (mail-yk0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70110AF for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:10:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ykft14 with SMTP id t14so111488602ykf.0 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:10:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4mgOzC3tihYwaoNVH+EpCNZoYBYgU07whk1N4KEJx+w=; b=jhb4HTOE+mqUkWjCcFXfsK7ngltNbTojY2ZnzhNNOqUxMIoUOMkzGu9r2K96KBENNz lUtmWvjS/zzalXhoJVd7AZpJ6HyBrrf45/uB26itDABIya2ys+DYEAW2gpajTsDwg+6w 40Ttn6ExHiCUFMhboBzHeOiWwznmh7VyDkKniGCS14Nj8zLIDpYkLv1wU0KVeVZlKW2i M2ry5lRzofVTUHKhSmuAlNilY6zDexo/HSY+RXTEVBA/4UQ7fe1aar5Lc8uaxkgRYeXo wPhKkCcrYV7HZORx1m6NvnKvsM98gSeFuaewiVejs/Yt+JohsvEqpztxwXimHTZf06vV dcQg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlthOgXyvj5TgYJ92ycG6bFqub+keC2HAlcq+udI9cjhdkTO0m/N4wasJqRPhXeFrVvh9ok MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.173.1 with SMTP id p1mr13204747ykd.101.1443795010415; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.13.220.65 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:10:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <13429f00cbb7f361b4cdf309f0e063b3@xbt.hk> References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> <13429f00cbb7f361b4cdf309f0e063b3@xbt.hk> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:10:10 +0200 Message-ID: From: Marcel Jamin To: jl2012@xbt.hk Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ac044b9a78e05211fb82b X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, 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 14:10:12 -0000 --001a113ac044b9a78e05211fb82b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2015-10-02 15:14 GMT+02:00 jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > According to the Oxford Dictionary, "coin" as a verb means "invent (a new > word or phrase)". Undoubtedly you created the first functional SPV client > but please retract the claim "I coined the term SPV" or that's plagiarism= . > > Or simply stop pursuing this silly distraction. > And I'd like to highlight the following excerpt from the whitepaper: "the > simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions > for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One > strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network > nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to > download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the > inconsistency." > > Header only clients without any fraud detecting mechanism are functional > but incomplete SPV implementations, according to Sathoshi's original > definition. This might be good enough for the first generation SPV wallet= , > but eventually SPV clients should be ready to detect any rule violation i= n > the blockchain, including things like block size (as Satoshi mentioned > "invalid block", not just "invalid transaction"). > > Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-10-02 08:23 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0: > >> FWIW the "coining" I am referring to is here: >> >> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D7972.msg116285#msg116285 [4] >> >> OK, with that, here goes. Firstly some terminology. I'm going to call >> these things SPV clients for "simplified payment verification". >> Headers-only is kind of a mouthful and "lightweight client" is too >> vague, as there are several other designs that could be described as >> lightweight like RPC frontend and Stefans WebCoin API approach >> >> 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. >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a113ac044b9a78e05211fb82b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2015= -10-02 15:14 GMT+02:00 jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
According to the Oxford Dictionary, "coin" as a verb means = "invent (a new word or phrase)". Undoubtedly you created the firs= t functional SPV client but please retract the claim "I coined the ter= m SPV" or that's plagiarism.


Or simply stop pursuing this silly dis= traction.
=C2=A0
And I'd like to highlight the following excerpt from the whitepaper: &q= uot;the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated tra= nsactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network= . One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from netwo= rk nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's softwa= re to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the incon= sistency."

Header only clients without any fraud detecting mechanism are functional bu= t incomplete SPV implementations, according to Sathoshi's original defi= nition. This might be good enough for the first generation SPV wallet, but = eventually SPV clients should be ready to detect any rule violation in the = blockchain, including things like block size (as Satoshi mentioned "in= valid block", not just "invalid transaction").

Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-10-02 08:23 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0:
FWIW the "coining" I am referring to is here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?= topic=3D7972.msg116285#msg116285 [4]

OK, with that, here goes. Firstly some terminology. I'm going to call these things SPV clients for "simplified payment verification". Headers-only is kind of a mouthful and "lightweight client" is to= o
vague, as there are several other designs that could be described as
lightweight like RPC frontend and Stefans WebCoin API approach

At that time nobody used the term "SPV wallet" to refer to what a= pps
like BreadWallet or libraries like bitcoinj do. Satoshi used the term
"client only mode", Jeff was calling them "headers only clie= nt" etc.
So I said, I'm going to call them SPV wallets after the section of the<= br> whitepaper that most precisely describes their operation.

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a113ac044b9a78e05211fb82b--