From: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail•com>
To: Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Setting the record straight on Proof-of-Publication
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 19:04:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAE28kUR-PLzMGC23ETesc2Bz1_F1JfgcqyMW4qFvV5Vjk+ubbg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <548ADED1.6060300@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]
>
> "Secure" and "client side validation" don't really belong in the same
> sentence, do they?
>
Well, client-side validation is mathematically secure, while SPV is
economically secure.
I.e. it is secure if you make several assumptions about economics of the
whole thing.
In my opinion the former is transfinitely more secure than the later.
But it's more of a philosophical question, sure.
The good thing about PoW-based consensus is that it is robust against
version inconsistencies and various accidents of this nature up to a
certain degree. But you hardly can depend on that:
You know, The Great Fork of 2013 was resolved through human intervention,
Bitcoin nodes were not smart enough to detect that something is going awry
on their own.
Naive proof-of-publication is very fragile in that respect, but you can
easily bring back robustness.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1208 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-12 17:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-12 9:05 Peter Todd
2014-12-12 12:25 ` Gareth Williams
2014-12-12 17:04 ` Alex Mizrahi [this message]
[not found] ` <CAOG=w-v3qjG3zd_WhfFU-OGnsHZEuYvY82eL4GqcdgY6np5bvA@mail.gmail.com>
2014-12-12 17:50 ` Alex Mizrahi
2014-12-13 13:32 ` Gareth Williams
2014-12-15 4:52 ` Peter Todd
2014-12-17 11:55 ` Gareth Williams
2014-12-21 6:12 ` Peter Todd
2014-12-15 4:17 ` Peter Todd
2014-12-12 13:41 ` odinn
2014-12-12 14:17 ` Justus Ranvier
2014-12-15 4:59 ` Peter Todd
2014-12-17 1:16 ` odinn
2014-12-20 14:48 ` [Bitcoin-development] The relationship between Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles Peter Todd
[not found] ` <CAOG=w-vrHPY1aCNndmoW9QyCh9XnWyv8uZn2PyjZ6rNg2MoSSw@mail.gmail.com>
2014-12-21 5:52 ` Peter Todd
[not found] ` <CAOG=w-tZke--6OsqNjJhE9SOdCwdZYZM8iz1VBTFziegt9UZWw@mail.gmail.com>
2014-12-21 7:01 ` Peter Todd
[not found] ` <CAOG=w-s1_VXJAKxBpMOK=B50qnHjxSe4J=vwwSfFPRz0_Cb9rA@mail.gmail.com>
2014-12-21 15:32 ` Peter Todd
2014-12-21 11:25 ` Jorge Timón
2014-12-21 16:07 ` Peter Todd
2014-12-21 19:39 ` Jorge Timón
2014-12-21 10:01 ` Adam Back
2014-12-21 15:29 ` Peter Todd
2014-12-21 13:49 ` paul snow
2014-12-21 15:22 ` Peter Todd
2014-12-21 15:41 ` paul snow
2014-12-22 0:11 ` Peter Todd
2015-01-06 11:03 ` joliver
2014-12-22 20:05 ` Adam Back
2014-12-16 20:28 [Bitcoin-development] Setting the record straight on Proof-of-Publication paul snow
2014-12-17 22:20 paul snow
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=CAE28kUR-PLzMGC23ETesc2Bz1_F1JfgcqyMW4qFvV5Vjk+ubbg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=alex.mizrahi@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=gacrux@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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