Quote from: Peter R on November 14, 2017, 04:49:24 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on November 14, 2017, 04:42:34 AM

Quote from: Peter R on November 14, 2017, 04:25:55 AM

The only risk to you is that I may have also signed that same bitcoin over to someone else.

More recently another risk emerged: The ability of the node to feed the user a different chain, and then proclaiming that this chain is Bitcoin - when it's not.

In this scenario, a userbase which relies heavily on a few nodes can be switched to any implementation the few node-owners want. So if a few node-owners collude, they can switch nearly the entire BTC userbase to another coin and then proclaim it BTC.

So nodes are important. Very important.

Sounds like you don't understand how PoW works.

There are risks associated with an SPV node, you have said that there hasn't been an example of the attacks being used in the wild, and this in some way you use to support the argument that we don't need to worry about them.

A false TX history, restricting access to funds, or faking the receipt of funds, all these are possible, but because no one has done it yet, you say we don't ever need to worry about it?
You have absolutely no idea what the threats will come in the future, the threat model to Bitcoin is changing monthly at the moment, we know that there is a distinct possibility that there is a miner with control/influence over 51% of the hash power and chopping out a significant part of the security of Bitcoin because you don't believe it is likely, doesn't wash.

Your SPV argument is as a direct result of your pursuit of bigger blocks, you have backed yourself into a corner, deep down you know that your full node argument is on dodgy ground, but if you want big blocks you don't have much choice but to defend a lost cause.

Compromise the security of Bitcoin in your chosen chain.... but not mine.