Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A11F3B5A for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:05:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com (mail-pf0-f172.google.com [209.85.192.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9F541DF for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id x63so20225491pfx.2 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:05:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thinlink-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tEETae2t8ar55jE+YPzpPZfOD01mLpqstfx+6WPalPU=; b=uD9IYo5qhHTc/dEvFWPAj95kgpY0vn9xzHQeMeYcCxHyy8WCcs5JKBzj73stpdmPvG Ux1yoY8RDirh7HFzj0K/3RVjroeMIkAvgagM7UWEY6Dsh1MQhUjAboZbj8+3ULfUIzu3 kxw8jhKV5YaoTeAMrbuGM+qcVS3BZfPYnoAch4jBL8HxFH6ZD6zXimC2ow+i1QhWJt26 XcJQkq0j6yveprwVImSqsZl8lYHBH3CdEcGNEzdBKisIfMcfVGrTKg1qf+3lPXlQ1O6S Dpwa3DjxRxmaZnQrZAKg3BK6wS0KU5bD+I72DtjWC2d0aifq0H5uiD9yCOH475NjJdpQ 6XwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tEETae2t8ar55jE+YPzpPZfOD01mLpqstfx+6WPalPU=; b=BA6q1HASbCtYe+Sr30QhBQYBj17XDD3xaNIfryTugMgFtseXeeN5uDzw9UYOxb0ge6 S+dBnwWwsuxEojL0KDL1dKCD3/G6kGC0OdydnPRLOu6t0xP3tZSuAURp27Hhh0jMC2FW Y2Rwah4buB2PbmPklE5OWkwn1EKJbKefkcgLbX0KzJHBZZVZRdO4pHttz1tv8MSsTdFt qNyIzcnWa4YZ1+tplaaOTNaKi/L3X8uHZCvfnOFlxcRMurmJpDN/ZZhBcbzwcJ/t++ah nvyYvwFxla5LYzXrtwi1/8KXdw8jVvMMv4iw4v3BtpXeYXRXTPIfZ/+2v0rZD4CjnBfL HjeA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0gVkW63yKsznLTgV3XMVrVpA4YajInNTZN8exTqnYLu48QK7zLzCVshfxFhxtghjuF X-Received: by 10.99.95.5 with SMTP id t5mr10632158pgb.27.1489676712964; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:05:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m67sm11242181pfj.32.2017.03.16.08.05.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:05:11 -0700 (PDT) To: bfd@cock.lu, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <71d822e413ac457a530e1c367811cc24@cock.lu> <77b6dd25-0603-a0bd-6a9e-38098e5cb19d@jonasschnelli.ch> <74aeb4760316b59a3db56c0d16d11f28@cock.lu> <045843cb19f03888da10d2954cd1c685@cock.lu> <7794520b-43a0-3227-1a68-58d12e432291@thinlink.com> <48d3940ab1a2bd53c6e056ce7fbcd361@cock.lu> From: Tom Harding Message-ID: <666037d7-9fd9-ad10-229d-9fbaec530538@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:05:11 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <48d3940ab1a2bd53c6e056ce7fbcd361@cock.lu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:12:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Committed bloom filters for improved wallet performance and SPV security X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:05:16 -0000 On 3/15/2017 5:25 PM, bfd@cock.lu wrote: > compact fraud proofs in Bitcoin aren't possible > In the white paper SPV clients have the same security as fully > validating nodes In addition to not existing, if compact fraud proofs did exist, trying to ensure they are seen by SPV clients has the same problems as BIP37. > in the implementation of BIP37 they have absolutely no security except > the vague hope that they are not being lied to, and that the chain > with the most work they are seeing is actually valid, both are very > weak assumptions. Since real money is involved, the near total absence of documented fraud along these lines belies the strong language. > During the validationless mining failure around the BIP66 activation > miners produced 6 invalid blocks in a chain, and many more invalid > blocks in isolated bursts for a period lasting several months. Due to > the instability of the network you are completely unreasonable to > accept anything except multiple confirmations This affected all users, not just SPV.