Author: Gregory Maxwell 2018-05-17 18:34:45
Published on: 2018-05-17T18:34:45+00:00
In an email conversation between Matt Corallo and an unknown recipient, the issue of implementing cross-checking for lite clients was discussed. Matt expressed his preference for it but also acknowledged that it would complicate the download logic; however, he noted that there might be other reasonable download logic to replace it with. Matt's thoughts on the matter were driven by three things: (1) the bandwidth overhead of performing the check, (2) the complexity of network-interacting-state-machine, and (3) the multitude of sanity checks that lite clients already don't implement. He suggested that eventually one of these filter-map designs would become committed and that this commitment would provide much stronger protection against malicious peers.Despite not having cross-checking implemented, clients can still perform the "are multiple peers telling me the same thing or different things" kind of checking, which is expected to be the strongest testing they would implement absent a commitment.
Updated on: 2023-05-20T08:30:55.871260+00:00