1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA7A197A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:42:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f174.google.com (mail-ua0-f174.google.com
[209.85.217.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8841F403
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:42:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f174.google.com with SMTP id i20so11554374uak.6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:42:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to; bh=hGXPEzqjkKy+rONmdiOcrxq9kvRIpbPB6TtZCj8uCfk=;
b=WGrOuuKncFRU0HUWklVR45yeTy5q/+0YplCXzglcLpXbMmW39mOJImCsHne5YQlEkD
Js723JyAQkhQZFCpApPiCbFmON5+R2NLSRVvP7lGUXfhzj0A4n9VDN/G4wWTMjCn9ji0
LE64bzRTFRsGjJRFeaH3ia/0eIGzzUcRD5g4NUaHcQ7qKwjzg4DPpfDsltS3q4HOPbru
AkJbkkMmpU+lYD5C0VcgKGwaIymKIPPtvcT+c1wdsioNuZTNBBc37wslmeQOlHB+CN5i
9USNrtaAdsshT2yVIfzBQUGnIeeK2PMD5+WeBYGij6KUaGqpsXnS2QWgTfRh/i2zUQaV
x0CQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=hGXPEzqjkKy+rONmdiOcrxq9kvRIpbPB6TtZCj8uCfk=;
b=o6C2T4lapbT6defIya/FJKz/5R0075ZyIK1may8h0WplrOO/YaMCCc8wNCIuqdBHT6
lX9NjJvUlbOth0Hcv66f0dHJnuymSRjS3bISUk81D7DystCarcmw5H18cKv3kZGAfDm+
MyVJ+mE8k/WzGZA6ZUDdqkVN8UQGqsJRPJD4xZADYSVVcNB8aTn8Neq3NELhGH7Szb0L
ZHdns92fIArVSRiWYVbLHKQ0EVsfQDUdKtHz5dq3Qs2byIY0xOY0tjqb3X6H7ciFZJ5N
N1Gi3tGgATsgEv9aJu12mHNT2VnrAgZ4szHdtq8ZR/HuD8l2nJSvf50mLcHmrsMUfpJz
olJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJ3OjLazRZ3BPsZlJFFkbkI/yaEW6Bb8P8xBUThlmoWchZK8aSu
nExIFNBksk38fQ4in2ohqDnzqYgxXkjf4oh9gXQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovB2+fNhpJqWqIkF/ByxS/5Tn3mJJaAuJpdTBHrImQQlyFOxb8DnuoQgcFdTawP2zIIGJXSgugjys7fGJ2DVi4=
X-Received: by 10.176.7.202 with SMTP id d10mr1085865uaf.21.1513629754702;
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:42:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.85.148 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:42:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAPswA9ycPdTtm9PeD5a2R36cZ46HwnkwJu06FXuoE-F5Dx+eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPswA9ycPdTtm9PeD5a2R36cZ46HwnkwJu06FXuoE-F5Dx+eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:42:34 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: c1tZBKzOYVFRQ4GC7dOVbrXHdjY
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRuLWbQLw=2EQEODGHOp0=OrLkGguw=jJSCpQXEC_P+hQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not witnessless nodes?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:42:36 -0000
Because it would make no meaningful difference now, and if you are not
going to check the history there are much more efficient things to
do-- like not transfer it at all.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Kalle Rosenbaum via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I find it hard to understand why a full node that does initial block
> download also must download witnesses if they are going to skip
> verification anyway. If my full node skips signature verification for
> blocks earlier than X, it seems the reasons for downloading the
> witnesses for those blocks are:
>
> * to be able to send witnesses to other nodes.
>
> * to verify the witness root hash of the blocks
>
> I suppose that it's important to verify the witness root hash because
> a bad peer may send me invalid witnesses during initial block
> download, and if I don't verify that the witness root hash actually
> commits to them, I will get banned by peers requesting the blocks from
> me because I send them garbage.
>
> So both the reasons above (there may be more that I don't know about)
> are actually the same reason: To be able to send witnesses to others
> without getting banned.
>
> What if a node could chose not to download witnesses and thus chose to
> send only witnessless blocks to peers. Let's call these nodes
> witnessless nodes. Note that witnessless nodes are only witnessless
> for blocks up to X. Everything after X is fully verified.
>
> Witnessless nodes would be able to sync faster because it needs to
> download less data to calculate their UTXO set. They would therefore
> more quickly be able to provide full service to SPV wallets and its
> local wallets as well as serving blocks to other witnessless nodes
> with same or higher assumevalid block. For witnessless nodes with
> lower assumevalid they can serve at least some blocks. It could also
> serve blocks to non-segwit nodes.
>
> Do witnessless nodes risk dividing the network in two parts, one
> witnessless and one with full nodes, with few connections between the
> parts?
>
> So basically, what are the reasons not to implement witnessless
> nodes?
>
> Thank you,
> /Kalle
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
