Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.47; envelope-from=alex.mizrahi@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wg0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <548ADED1.6060300@gmail.com>
References: <20141212090551.GA8259@muck>
	<548ADED1.6060300@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 19:04:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE28kUR-PLzMGC23ETesc2Bz1_F1JfgcqyMW4qFvV5Vjk+ubbg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>
To: Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043d67e588fb6b050a07e18b
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Setting the record straight on
	Proof-of-Publication
Precedence: list

--f46d043d67e588fb6b050a07e18b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> "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.

--f46d043d67e588fb6b050a07e18b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">&quot;Secure&quot; and &quot;client side validat=
ion&quot; don&#39;t really belong in the same<br>
sentence, do they?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, client-side va=
lidation is mathematically secure, while SPV is economically secure.</div><=
div>I.e. it is secure if you make several assumptions about economics of th=
e whole thing.</div><div><br></div><div>In my opinion the former is transfi=
nitely more secure than the later.</div><div>But it&#39;s more of a philoso=
phical question, sure.</div><div><br></div><div>The good thing about PoW-ba=
sed consensus is that it is robust against version inconsistencies and vari=
ous accidents of this nature up to a certain degree. But you hardly can dep=
end on that:=C2=A0</div><div>You know, The Great Fork of 2013 was resolved =
through human intervention, Bitcoin nodes were not smart enough to detect t=
hat something is going awry on their own.</div><div><br></div><div>Naive pr=
oof-of-publication is very fragile in that respect, but you can easily brin=
g back robustness.=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>

--f46d043d67e588fb6b050a07e18b--