From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:43:58 -0500
Message-Id: <CD7FBCF6-5386-4E9E-A3B9-D5B3DBAF312C@voskuil.org>
References: <CAPswA9ycPdTtm9PeD5a2R36cZ46HwnkwJu06FXuoE-F5Dx+eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPswA9ycPdTtm9PeD5a2R36cZ46HwnkwJu06FXuoE-F5Dx+eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not witnessless nodes?
Precedence: list


> On Dec 18, 2017, at 03:32, Kalle Rosenbaum via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> Dear list,
>=20
> 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 verificati=
on anyway.

Why run a full node if you are not going to verify the chain?

> If my full node skips signature verification for
> blocks earlier than X, it seems the reasons for downloading the
> witnesses for those blocks are:
>=20
> * to be able to send witnesses to other nodes.
>=20
> * to verify the witness root hash of the blocks
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Do witnessless nodes risk dividing the network in two parts, one
> witnessless and one with full nodes, with few connections between the
> parts?
>=20
> So basically, what are the reasons not to implement witnessless
> nodes?
>=20
> Thank you,
> /Kalle
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev