Message-ID: <535C6DEC.9040505@certimix.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:39:40 -0300
From: Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner@certimix.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <535C587F.90005@certimix.com> <535C60C8.5030605@monetize.io>
In-Reply-To: <535C60C8.5030605@monetize.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] About Compact SPV proofs via block header
 commitments
Precedence: list

El 26/04/2014 10:43 p.m., Mark Friedenbach escribió:
> Sergio,
>
> First of all, let's define what an SPV proof is: it is a succinct
> sequence of bits which can be transmitted as part of a non-interactive
> protocol that convincingly establishes for a client without access to
> the block chain that for some block B, B has an ancestor A at some
> specified height and work distance back, and the cost of creating a
> false proof is at least as much work as it claims to represent.
Ok. I was thinking with another definition SPV proof.

For me a SPV proof is a sequence of bits which can be transmitted as
part of a non-interactive protocol that convincingly establishes for a
client without access to the block chain that a block B is part of the
best-chain.

I understand that SPV nodes require SPV proofs as defined in my
definition, but I can't realize how to prove that SPV nodes require SPV
proofs under your definition. So your definition sounds to me like one
possible solution, but not the need.
 
Is your definition something well-established in the community?