Author: ZmnSCPxj 2017-12-07 06:46:08
Published on: 2017-12-07T06:46:08+00:00
The context discusses the issue of SPV confirmation faced by a node that is temporarily stopped and restarted after some time. The node cannot verify the "consensus" transaction pool during the time it was stopped and can only trust the longest chain, which makes it an SPV for this particular rule. Even if the next blocksize is broadcast with the completed block, it would not be easy to back confirm it. If the node slept at block height 500,000 and received a purported block at height 500,001 on awakening, it would be difficult to know whether the transaction pool at block 500,001 was of the correct size to provide the given "next blocksize." Thus, the only way is to look for another chain with greater height that includes or does not include that block, which is SPV confirmation.The context also raises questions about how the node knows that it has caught up and that its transaction pool is similar to that of its neighbors. It also questions whether the node should stop using SPV confirmation and switch to strict fullnode rejection of blocks that indicate a "next blocksize" that is too large or too small according to the equation. The consensus rules should restrict themselves to the characteristics of the block and the transactions within the block. The transaction pool, which comprises transactions that are not in any block, is not safe to depend on for any consensus rules.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T22:35:48.807874+00:00