Re: Segwit details? SEGWIT WASTES PRECIOUS BLOCKCHAIN SPACE PERMANENTLY
We could easily say SPV solves all signature attack problems. Just make it so your node doesnt do much at all and it avoids all these pesky problems, but the important issue to many people is what is the effect on full nodes. And by full, I mean a node that doesnt prune, relays, validates signatures and enables other nodes to do the bootstrapping.
Without that, doesnt bitcoin security model change to PoS level? I know how much you hate PoS
James
Without that, doesnt bitcoin security model change to PoS level? I know how much you hate PoS
James
you paint the situation as if the binary options are 1. fully validating nodes (verify everything) and 2. thin clients (verify nothing). if we increase bandwidth pressure on nodes by increasing throughput capacity, then fully validating nodes can only switch to verifying nothing.
a much better solution is one that allows for fully validating nodes that would otherwise be forced off the network to partially validate -- whether by relaying blocks only, validating non-segwit tx, pruning data that is already under significant proof of work and therefore very likely secure. just because a pruned node cant bootstrap a new node doesnt mean it doesnt provide great value to the network.
are you suggesting that it would be better to simply force all these nodes off the network and into using trust-based protocols? because when you double bandwidth requirements and leave full nodes no other options, that's what happens.
there is a new term for this: "tradeoff denialism"
one could claim that increasing throughput doesnt mean pressuring nodes to shut down. but youd be living in denial, as throughput is directly related to bandwidth requirements