Fraud proofs need to be at least more efficient than full node validation. Currently they are not.
On 06/27/2015 09:54 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > Fraud proofs actually don’t need to be made super efficient…but they do need > to be secure, of course. > > The trick is aligning incentives. In order for fraud proofs to be widely > available there needs to be a market for them - there must be a way to buy > one (because producing one is not free). What makes such a scheme actually > practical is that very few of these fraud proofs ever need to actually be > executed - it’s a classical Nimzowischian case of the threat being much > stronger than the execution. > > - Eric Lombrozo > >> On Jun 27, 2015, at 7:13 PM, Patrick Strateman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Further, it appears clear that the original author intended >> organizations operating full network nodes would provide connectivity to >> light clients and these light clients would make up the majority of the >> user base. >> >> Satoshi also believed that fraud proofs would be widely available and >> practical. >> >> If fraud proofs were practical SPV client security would be much closer >> to full node security than it is today. >> >> Unfortunately no design for fraud proofs which is both efficient and >> secure has been proposed; much less implemented and deployed. >> >> In building a system as new and innovative as bitcoin certain things >> will be wrong. >> >> The perception that SPV clients could be made nearly as secure as full >> nodes is one example of something that was wrong. >> >> On 06/27/2015 05:14 PM, Santino Napolitano wrote: >>> There is much heated debate going on right now and I know it can be very >>> stressful but I'd like to point out that it is really amazing how >>> passionately so many feel about this once very small project. Let's not >>> forget there is something really special going on here and we're all part >>> of it. >>> >>> The current debate has little to do with block size or hard-forks, IMO. >>> It's about the nature of Bitcoin and what it means to people and how it >>> will grow. I would like to take a moment to share my interpretation of the >>> original author's intent based on everything I could find and read from >>> this person. This is not to say their original vision is paramount-- or >>> even that I got it completely correct but I think it might do us some good >>> to think about. >>> >>> It seems as though the incentive conceived of for running a full network >>> node was that it would enable mining. The proceeds from mining (new coins >>> and transaction fees) would be the reward and provide a reason to continue >>> operating these nodes. If fees are ever to be a sufficient reward and still >>> allow for a practical and useful system the size of the blocks must grow >>> significantly as must the user base. I'm not sure that this is really >>> contested but I haven't exhaustively reviewed everyone's opinion so please >>> excuse me if I have marginalized you. If you do contest that I would be >>> interested in hearing it. >>> >>> Further, it appears clear that the original author intended organizations >>> operating full network nodes would provide connectivity to light clients >>> and these light clients would make up the majority of the user base. This >>> is completely consistent with current trends in Internet consumption, e.g. >>> tablets and phones are becoming more preferred to even owning a traditional >>> computer. Having the system be entirely decentralized and trustless for >>> every client does not appear to me to be the original design goal. Yes, the >>> whitepaper speaks of the design goal as not having a need for a trusted >>> third party but it does not say that some amount of trust won't be >>> preferred by a majority of users. In fact, in the SPV section it implies >>> some amount of localized trust is perhaps a necessary trade-off and maybe >>> businesses should still run their own full network node if they want the >>> stronger completely trustless guarantee. The global decentralized consensus >>> appears meant to make the network >> r >>> esilient to a single government or other adversary's ability to shut the >>> network down. If you really want to trust no one it is your option at a >>> cost and should be possible by design. The author further gives evidence >>> that they believe Moore's observation would keep the idea of running a full >>> network node a practical one at global scale for perpetuity. It does not >>> appear as if they intended for every individual to run one at home nor in >>> their pocket. >>> >>> If my interpretation seems incorrect please do point it out. I hope this >>> hasn't been too off-topic and distracting. The original author's >>> engineering ingenuity is what gave me any interest in this project so >>> re-visiting their design and scaling intentions might be helpful for us to >>> move forward-- together. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
