Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:22:25 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAAy62_KUSNTjivwJT87K9f1c=k-6gdaLXEBJjcy2KK+uLSTWDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201701270107.01092.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAy62_+1OjF3V5g4wpOyW0KtNGodddJu_cxOfG-f+8LB7D=rPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAy62_JuWMQ=HMmcw8GsQSDM8S+4LJeG1GHw1OdT+mQC3H-DOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201701270414.18553.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAy62_LHtrx7k73kznMpPvheA--0T9YiHkjHArf2KK0Qt+ViUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAy62_LeNi1djDmArX0RWW=rD0GJU9eSqCy0o4G9eg3Y7O+0Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMZUoKnxqxvPQehdWo1ZaHB-1-od4cHvJRDTmF5x7ty1CdLbUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMZUoK=eb3jgA7Rwt38tvZt0tYk7gRVPc_2=HUWg1L_vaD93uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMZUoKmUH7ah7pnUgLHFtwYacw2=v3rJ0-csJ8thRy=REM92iw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB3F3DviHkQo9ndYphOgUvgSum9TTzX=AA_Acdf-9sZJ7TuHuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170127212810.GA5856@nex>
	<CAAy62_KUSNTjivwJT87K9f1c=k-6gdaLXEBJjcy2KK+uLSTWDA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="----5BWSCRGOTHE0AH6FU8X8MC3D5QV2DE"; 
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
To: Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, 
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <20E4FCBB-E841-4F8C-9906-743E4A023259@petertodd.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs
Precedence: list

------5BWSCRGOTHE0AH6FU8X8MC3D5QV2DE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8


On 27 January 2017 15:53:02 GMT-08:00, Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev <bit=
coin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg> wrote:
>I'd also like to point out to Luke that Satoshi envisioned most full
>nodes
>running in data centers in the white paper, not every single user needs
>to
>run a full node to use bitcoin=2E  Not to present this as an argument
>from
>authority, but rather to remind us what the intention of the system was
>to
>be(p2p cash, not a settlement layer only afforded by the wealthiest and
>largest value transactions)=2E  That a lot of people want to continue to
>move
>in that direction shouldn't be a surprise=2E

Satoshi also thought that SPV clients would be able to use fraud proofs (c=
alled "alerts" in the white paper) to detect fraudulent behavior by miners,=
 and thus not have to completely trust those nodes in those datacenters=2E =
Unfortunately it turns out that fraud proofs are both a very difficult engi=
neering challenge to implement, and also offer much less security than once=
 thought=2E In fact, as per Satoshi's vision, SPV clients don't currently e=
xist; what's called SPV isn't what Satoshi was envisioning=2E

Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that aspects of Satoshi's visio=
n for Bitcoin turned out to be wrong: the white paper also refers to the "l=
ongest chain" rather than most-work chain, something that had to be fixed i=
n what's technically a hardfork after Bitcoin's initial release=2E
------5BWSCRGOTHE0AH6FU8X8MC3D5QV2DE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQE9BAABCgAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJYjOFi
AAoJEGOZARBE6K+yz4MH/jwEkiU8OGBNm/EZYonY7qTIYA6ek4I8jjwvYbUS+79h
8ZNswhz3JWIbevup0RwFhwC948m3jLVH8QvsMr+QDQqo/Dvsq9uiiqg3l/6BnauV
4dZwjCyuIY3kWPO1LAkc1gJ7vRz8/SYwHaF0Oc4zZmQjGLLzfUj4YUCA+QgSetmd
Ch8B9Iqjc8xIIqN1ocyihDqM/TUJd4bjhQoqJtIIl90ivEmHsJPbVdOhOMZ/bsMd
ySR6JMvRaVKYDNKdnc246Z22bPh0XSkH4Qt8rxHZumeM0OvW9Mmd3YAGCQrCUyd+
aWvuZmMb8cc1E1m2SlWDmH4jDHDXdinIESYwcgyFEOE=
=x9DN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------5BWSCRGOTHE0AH6FU8X8MC3D5QV2DE--