From: Ethan Scruples <ethan.scruples@gmail•com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] assumeutxo and UTXO snapshots
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 23:04:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACiOHGy9q_W+w1n6q2hxvbrD_SfvbQ3AsNe+W+UBgEV8QF2C3Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201904040248.34162.luke@dashjr.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1306 bytes --]
> This is exactly the danger. UTXO snapshots are NOT an alternative to a
real IBD. There are HUGE security implications for this.
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about when I say that people
do not appear to notice that there is no important security implication to
be found here.
If there are huge security implications for this, then I am keen to hear
them. In the scenario I have described, what advantage does Bob have over
Alice? What actionable information has Bob gained, and what is the action
he can take with it in hand? What value does Bob receive in return for the
electricity he has spent validating the previous blocks? I cannot find any,
but I am open to hearing the answer, and I think others would benefit from
knowing it as well.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:49 PM Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 April 2019 15:39:29 Ethan Scruples via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > If we can get mandatory UTXO commitments soft forked into Bitcoin, we get
> > the advantage of a non-growing IBD,
>
> No, we don't. This is exactly the danger. UTXO snapshots are NOT an
> alternative to a real IBD. There are HUGE security implications for this.
> Frankly, the danger that someone would do such a thing is itself a good
> reason not to ever add UTXO commitments.
>
> Luke
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1698 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-04 3:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-02 20:43 James O'Beirne
2019-04-03 6:37 ` Jonas Schnelli
2019-04-03 15:39 ` Ethan Scruples
2019-04-03 21:39 ` Dave Scotese
2019-04-04 3:01 ` Luke Dashjr
2019-04-04 5:59 ` Jim Posen
2019-04-04 14:36 ` James O'Beirne
2019-04-13 19:09 ` Peter Todd
2019-04-15 0:44 ` Dave Scotese
2019-04-04 2:48 ` Luke Dashjr
2019-04-04 3:04 ` Ethan Scruples [this message]
2019-04-03 19:51 ` James O'Beirne
2019-04-03 9:55 ` Luke Dashjr
2019-04-03 23:03 ` Jim Posen
2019-04-14 13:16 ` Omar Shibli
2019-04-23 14:17 ` James O'Beirne
[not found] <mailman.2593.1554248572.29810.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
2019-04-03 7:51 ` Nicolas Dorier
2019-04-04 10:27 ` Kulpreet Singh
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=CACiOHGy9q_W+w1n6q2hxvbrD_SfvbQ3AsNe+W+UBgEV8QF2C3Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ethan.scruples@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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