public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
To: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not witnessless nodes?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:43:58 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CD7FBCF6-5386-4E9E-A3B9-D5B3DBAF312C@voskuil.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPswA9ycPdTtm9PeD5a2R36cZ46HwnkwJu06FXuoE-F5Dx+eZQ@mail.gmail.com>


> On Dec 18, 2017, at 03:32, Kalle Rosenbaum via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear list,
> 
> I find it hard to understand why a full node that does initial block
> download also must download witnesses if they are going to skip verification anyway.

Why run a full node if you are not going to verify the chain?

> If my full node skips signature verification for
> blocks earlier than X, it seems the reasons for downloading the
> witnesses for those blocks are:
> 
> * to be able to send witnesses to other nodes.
> 
> * to verify the witness root hash of the blocks
> 
> I suppose that it's important to verify the witness root hash because
> a bad peer may send me invalid witnesses during initial block
> download, and if I don't verify that the witness root hash actually
> commits to them, I will get banned by peers requesting the blocks from
> me because I send them garbage.
> So both the reasons above (there may be more that I don't know about)
> are actually the same reason: To be able to send witnesses to others
> without getting banned.
> 
> What if a node could chose not to download witnesses and thus chose to
> send only witnessless blocks to peers. Let's call these nodes
> witnessless nodes. Note that witnessless nodes are only witnessless
> for blocks up to X. Everything after X is fully verified.
> 
> Witnessless nodes would be able to sync faster because it needs to
> download less data to calculate their UTXO set. They would therefore
> more quickly be able to provide full service to SPV wallets and its
> local wallets as well as serving blocks to other witnessless nodes
> with same or higher assumevalid block. For witnessless nodes with
> lower assumevalid they can serve at least some blocks. It could also
> serve blocks to non-segwit nodes.
> 
> Do witnessless nodes risk dividing the network in two parts, one
> witnessless and one with full nodes, with few connections between the
> parts?
> 
> So basically, what are the reasons not to implement witnessless
> nodes?
> 
> Thank you,
> /Kalle
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-12-18 12:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-18  8:32 [bitcoin-dev] Why not witnessless nodes? Kalle Rosenbaum
2017-12-18 12:11 ` Ozgur
2017-12-18 12:43 ` Eric Voskuil [this message]
2017-12-18 13:35   ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2017-12-18 16:19     ` Eric Voskuil
2017-12-18 17:30       ` Mark Friedenbach
2017-12-18 21:27         ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2017-12-18 21:58           ` Eric Voskuil
2017-12-18 20:34       ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2017-12-18 20:42 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-12-18 21:51   ` Kalle Rosenbaum

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=CD7FBCF6-5386-4E9E-A3B9-D5B3DBAF312C@voskuil.org \
    --to=eric@voskuil.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=kalle@rosenbaum.se \
    /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