Author: Mark Friedenbach 2015-06-28 15:23:49
Published on: 2015-06-28T15:23:49+00:00
Patrick Strateman has commented that fraud proofs need to be more efficient than full node validation, and Eric Lombrozo added that the trick is aligning incentives. However, current UTXO commitments are expensive, requiring 15-22x more I/O during block validation and are a limiter to block validation speed. Lombrozo clarified that SPV is fundamentally unsound as it currently exists, but he is talking about potential optimizations for future protocols. Furthermore, there is no design for fraud proofs which is both efficient and secure has been proposed; much less implemented and deployed. Santino Napolitano shared his interpretation of the original author's intent based on everything he could find and read from that person. The incentive conceived of for running a full network node was to enable mining, and the rewards from mining (new coins and transaction fees) would provide a reason to continue operating these nodes. It appears clear that the original author intended organizations operating full network nodes to provide connectivity to light clients, and these light clients would make up the majority of the user base. However, the perception that SPV clients could be made nearly as secure as full nodes is one example of something that was wrong.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T01:36:13.551441+00:00