Asterisk,
Welcome back to the bitcoin discussion forum as a newbie, I was waiting for you and I hope you expect nothing less than full hiding here (just kidding
)
Meanwhile, please behave and do not make an embracement out of this brand new id too. I know who you are, and I understand it is a shame for the bitcoin community to watch an important figure being humiliated because of his own reckless manner of debating. I understand too, it is hard for you to get rid of your own malicious discourse. But come on, just give this fake id a shot and think out of the box if you may.
I see no confusion in what you have quoted from me. It is crystal clear: Your claim about full nodes playing such a crucial role in bitcoin is simply wrong and baseless. As I've extensively discussed up-thread, full nodes have nothing to do with the network security, they are just useful for the entities who own them as a single body to keep them somewhat more securagainst some attacks that are not considered realistic anyway.
So, I skip the embracing confusion part of your post if you don't mind.
In the scheme that I'm advocating for, nodes do not accept (and relay) a single block without full validation. Guys like you are worried about malicious UTXOs being forged by miners and committed to for hundreds up to thousands of blocks and exploited thereafter, which is really a stupid paranoia. It could also be considered a forgery of concepts to spread FUD about the mining scene of bitcoin for political reasons, again, stupid.
Cheers,
Welcome back to the bitcoin discussion forum as a newbie, I was waiting for you and I hope you expect nothing less than full hiding here (just kidding
)Meanwhile, please behave and do not make an embracement out of this brand new id too. I know who you are, and I understand it is a shame for the bitcoin community to watch an important figure being humiliated because of his own reckless manner of debating. I understand too, it is hard for you to get rid of your own malicious discourse. But come on, just give this fake id a shot and think out of the box if you may.
I see no confusion in what you have quoted from me. It is crystal clear: Your claim about full nodes playing such a crucial role in bitcoin is simply wrong and baseless. As I've extensively discussed up-thread, full nodes have nothing to do with the network security, they are just useful for the entities who own them as a single body to keep them somewhat more securagainst some attacks that are not considered realistic anyway.
So, I skip the embracing confusion part of your post if you don't mind.
UTXO commitments discussion
Regarding UTXO commitments, again you discuss these without understanding Bitcoin.
I'll share with you here that UTXO commitments are somehow similar to Ethereum 1's blocks' merkleized state snapshots.
What happened in the Ethereum community then was that, they fell for the temptation of validating blocks at all - when the Ethereum network is too busy, it will trig a feature that they call "fast forward", where a fully validating node will skipover one or more blocks, and thus simply blindly trusts the other nodes and the miners that they didn't forge anything. This is extremely risky and a viable attack vector for attacking their blockchain.
Further discussion of Bitcoin's security model, the definition of decentralization, and of that, here: https://hackernoon.com/the-ethereum-blockchain-size-has-exceeded-1tb-and-yes-its-an-issue-2b650b5f4f62
What is called UTXO commitment is radically different from Ethereum's snapshots. The latter is vulnerable to short-range attacks UTXO commitment is not! I read the article you've linked, the day it was published, good statistics about Ethereum but nothing new bitcoin, the same blind enthusiasm about current bitcoin. Put some real meat on the table, please. Regarding UTXO commitments, again you discuss these without understanding Bitcoin.
I'll share with you here that UTXO commitments are somehow similar to Ethereum 1's blocks' merkleized state snapshots.
What happened in the Ethereum community then was that, they fell for the temptation of validating blocks at all - when the Ethereum network is too busy, it will trig a feature that they call "fast forward", where a fully validating node will skipover one or more blocks, and thus simply blindly trusts the other nodes and the miners that they didn't forge anything. This is extremely risky and a viable attack vector for attacking their blockchain.
Further discussion of Bitcoin's security model, the definition of decentralization, and of that, here: https://hackernoon.com/the-ethereum-blockchain-size-has-exceeded-1tb-and-yes-its-an-issue-2b650b5f4f62
In the scheme that I'm advocating for, nodes do not accept (and relay) a single block without full validation. Guys like you are worried about malicious UTXOs being forged by miners and committed to for hundreds up to thousands of blocks and exploited thereafter, which is really a stupid paranoia. It could also be considered a forgery of concepts to spread FUD about the mining scene of bitcoin for political reasons, again, stupid.
A 51% attack would not let through a double-spend
Last to respond to your question in the thread's title, "Is 51% attack a double-spending threat to Bitcoin?", I guess you have the answer already: It is not.
Why? According to you, it is because full nodes won't allow it but my argument is more solid: It is not gonna happen because it will be revealed anyways and destroy the attacker completely beforehand. Bitcoin inflation rules are currently parts of a social contract, rather than some lines of code, it is hard to understand but you should try. Last to respond to your question in the thread's title, "Is 51% attack a double-spending threat to Bitcoin?", I guess you have the answer already: It is not.
Cheers,