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
|
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 0456E1EFA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:37:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com
[209.85.223.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8327E2CA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:37:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iofh134 with SMTP id h134so126213427iof.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=3QJcJgdEOUNhSGlfh7sJ9Hj5SN+TrSylNq/DJlPZEE8=;
b=e5bpcEZFVQ06LWGYiGVzorVWm/qXDmqsDRlPEGnHqq/TBajUjL5C2th3KLv37AzA4r
QkWlrIuiZKaVcldubHbP1PzClRm1rrDWMKnncGbJxj0a1V/9diWah+cBt12ky6KHotUU
+M6KIF4OPMfNxVrqQQCqrW/bnCmGv51oWPi+z4ZYT0IUBOP/UbnuWFybDz7YnYxd2cG5
G7iAA+FoS3hi0EY5S8kFTzqzUb4s15KULeaGG4ltYe2oAWVBxxDoVtuD/p7LCErWH81p
Lti53W/XJTGr+4VX4v6eyIMarjcqNrfpk+nRpBg4bdF53muDnTXwVl53SLjuGi3p8X7r
8Cpg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.13.75 with SMTP id 72mr16932130ion.75.1443803827947;
Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.19.30 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKTti0_edCPPPJ6ibZcphfi51MgKdndQy1kyi-0uEXCHRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSEDGBd67m7i8zCgNRqtmQrZyZMj7a5TsYo41Dh=tdhHQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKRKGS=KZrLtiW8Zbn4EQH_TELfQR+TfrADCMXLR22Q+tw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgR_-x4kUkiMTCi+YdpV-6MXaEp+b2ZzrVc9Dqt3rnfAyA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKQChBBnXNj0hz5i-D=NqQBpQDReD6fNkONRaQhWaxLTVA@mail.gmail.com>
<CECF25CD-6DF0-412F-9FF4-5AE3249C0A39@taoeffect.com>
<CADm_WcaKQLTtuOxcvby0VFnhY-qEfC4WChNF+TtEr2yLJr_w-g@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKTti0_edCPPPJ6ibZcphfi51MgKdndQy1kyi-0uEXCHRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:37:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSe3AW-5g4dJTffd1AieUNwNRH7kTrE4c+ejddssC2V1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,PLING_QUERY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65
CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:37:09 -0000
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> At that time nobody used the term "SPV wallet" to refer to what apps like
> BreadWallet or libraries like bitcoinj do. Satoshi used the term "client
> only mode", Jeff was calling them "headers only client" etc. So I said, I'm
> going to call them SPV wallets after the section of the whitepaper that most
> precisely describes their operation.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=125.msg1149#msg1149 (a full
year before your post, as someone else had already responded to you on
Reddit; client mode was just what implementation inside Bitcoin was
called)
But this is silly. The only point I was making was that when you were
referring to the limitations of BitcoinJ which would not generalize to
not state it as a property of SPV I think it is preferable to make
that decision,especially when it would not generalize to ones that
implemented everything described in section 8, or even just more
complete checks on the data they were already receiving. Who coined
the tern is irrelevant to that (although you indisputably did not use
even the abbreviation before others). Jtimon's later post on the
misuse of fallacious arguments should have been enough that I
shouldn't have to spell this out.
|
