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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1RhqZC-0001Lf-6K
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:41:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-vx0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-vx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RhqZB-000790-Aq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:41:18 +0000
Received: by vcbf1 with SMTP id f1so15588421vcb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:41:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.228.201 with SMTP id jf9mr28381097vcb.8.1325544070469;
Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:41:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.4.68 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:41:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <jdtaol$3ku$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <jdrds3$3tf$1@dough.gmane.org>
<CALxbBHU7f1m+p45RHLhN-VGBoXJEi62x5mZUiAe_d5D-5Ga7yA@mail.gmail.com>
<jdtaol$3ku$1@dough.gmane.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:41:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTOZKM9c=UvfVW1rajnPQVQMNS4mR5KUqq8p0HreG=vuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Elden Tyrell <tyrell.elden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1RhqZB-000790-Aq
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] does "stubbing" off Merkle trees reduce
initial download bandwidth?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:41:18 -0000
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Elden Tyrell <tyrell.elden@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> On 2012-01-02 05:31:19 -0800, Christian Decker said:
>> Later full blocks would be required to detect usable inputs for future
>> outgoing transactions.
>
> Er, yes, this is what I meant; I guess I should have been more specific.
>
> So, a paranoid client cannot confirm reciept of coins until it has an
> unstubbed copy of the entire chain. =C2=A0It can do other things (like se=
nd
> coins) using a stubbed chain, but it needs the whole unstubbed chain in
> order to be sure that incoming coins haven't already been spent.
>
> Thanks for confirming this.
Er, no=E2=80=94 if a node controls the private keys for a transaction, and
that transaction makes it into the chain then it can safely assume
that its unspent (at least once its buried a few blocks into the
chain). This is the essence of a SPV node.
What it can't do is perform this function for txn which aren't its
own. Though the system could be extended in a compatible manner to
make this possible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D21995.0
|
