On Fri, Jun 9, 2017, at 05:50, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote: > Tomas wrote: > > I don't completely understand the benefit of making the outpoints and > > pubkey hashes (weakly) verifiable. These only serve as notifications and > > therefore do not seem to introduce an attack vector. > > Not sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate? >
I will rephrase. The BIP reads: > Additionally, Full nodes can nearly undetectably lie by omission causing a > denial of service which can lead to undesirable failure modes in applications whose safety critically relies on responding to certain on-chain events. I understand that the compact header chain is used to mitigate against this, but I am unsure about the use cases and trade-offs. For a normal wallet, the only thing I can imagine an attacker could do is pretending a transaction did not confirm yet, causing nuisance. An application critically depending on knowing what happens on-chain surely is better off downloading the TXIDs, providing PoW security? Gaining knowledge of incoming TXIDs is nicely solved the payment protocol. Are there enough use cases that critically depend on pub key hashes being used on-chain, to make the compact header chain worth its costs? Regards, Tomas _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
