On 27/04/2014 02:05 p.m., Mark Friedenbach wrote:
On 04/27/2014 05:36 AM, Sergio Lerner wrote:
Without invoking moon math or assumptions of honest peers and
jamming-free networks, the only way to know a chain is valid is to
witness the each and every block. SPV nodes on the other hand,
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
I don't think there's an official definition of SPV proof. I wasn't
trying to make a argument from definition (that would be fallacious!).
Rather I suspected that we had different concepts in mind and wanted to
check.
That said, I do think that the definition I gave matches how the term is
used
El 27/04/2014 03:43 a.m., Mark Friedenbach escribió:
I don't think there's an official definition of SPV proof. I wasn't
trying to make a argument from definition (that would be fallacious!).
Rather I suspected that we had different concepts in mind and wanted to
check.
So to disambiguate I
On 04/27/2014 05:36 AM, Sergio Lerner wrote:
Without invoking moon math or assumptions of honest peers and
jamming-free networks, the only way to know a chain is valid is to
witness the each and every block. SPV nodes on the other hand,
simply trust that the most-work chain is a valid
Sergio,
First of all, let's define what an SPV proof is: it is a succinct
sequence of bits which can be transmitted as part of a non-interactive
protocol that convincingly establishes for a client without access to
the block chain that for some block B, B has an ancestor A at some
specified
El 26/04/2014 10:43 p.m., Mark Friedenbach escribió:
Sergio,
First of all, let's define what an SPV proof is: it is a succinct
sequence of bits which can be transmitted as part of a non-interactive
protocol that convincingly establishes for a client without access to
the block chain that for
7 matches
Mail list logo
