Author: Patrick Strateman 2015-06-28 05:29:24
Published on: 2015-06-28T05:29:24+00:00
The efficiency of fraud proofs needs to improve, as they are not currently more efficient than full node validation. Eric Lombrozo explains that fraud proofs do not need to be super efficient but must be secure and have a market for them. There must be a way to buy one because producing one is not free. The trick is aligning incentives. Fraud proofs need to be widely available with very few of them ever executed. Patrick Strateman believes that if fraud proofs were practical, SPV client security would be much closer to full node security. Unfortunately, no design for fraud proofs that is both efficient and secure has been proposed or implemented.Santino Napolitano believes that the current debate has little to do with block size or hard-forks, but instead about the nature of Bitcoin and how it will grow. The incentive conceived of for running a full network node was to enable mining and provide rewards. The proceeds from mining (new coins and transaction fees) would be the reward and provide a reason to continue operating these nodes. The original author intended organizations operating full network nodes would provide connectivity to light clients, and these light clients would make up the majority of the user base. In fact, in the SPV section, the author implies localized trust is perhaps a necessary trade-off and maybe businesses should still run their own full network node if they want the stronger completely trustless guarantee. However, the global decentralized consensus appears meant to make the network resilient to a single government or other adversary's ability to shut the network down.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T01:36:00.411120+00:00