Talk:Thin Client Security - Revision history

Lapp0: formatting

2015-02-28T18:17:20Z

formatting

Lapp0: /* Major Restructuring */

2015-02-28T18:11:59Z

Major Restructuring

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, 28 February 2015
Line 73:		Line 73:
	--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])		--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])

	:If you continue to add nonsense to the article and don't discuss it here (especially when you add 2000+ ~~lines~~ of incorrect information where the note implies it is a minor edit), I will continue to revert. --[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])		:If you continue to add nonsense to the article and don't discuss it here (especially when you add 2000+ characters of incorrect information where the note implies it is a minor edit), I will continue to revert. --[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])

Lapp0: /* Major Restructuring */

2015-02-28T18:11:42Z

Major Restructuring

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, 28 February 2015
Line 72:		Line 72:

	--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])		--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])

			:If you continue to add nonsense to the article and don't discuss it here (especially when you add 2000+ lines of incorrect information where the note implies it is a minor edit), I will continue to revert. --[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])

Luke-jr at 07:07, 28 February 2015

2015-02-28T07:07:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:07, 28 February 2015
Line 48:		Line 48:

	[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 06:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)		[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 06:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

			I've always considered "the Nth block of a blockchain" to be an independent property from the validity of the blockchain. I'm not aware of any common term for this, but "height N" isn't generally used in that sense (although in most cases it's implied that one is talking about a valid blockchain, regardless of the height property). As for contrasting with SPV, I would suggest "fully-validat{ed,ing}" or "full node".

			When a user assumes a transaction is confirmed/irreversible is a subjective matter, and may be before the block is mined if they trust the sender or it's of low value, or long afterward if they don't trust the mining ecosystem's balance or the value is such that they need more security. So I think the term you want there is "confirmed", but it's not a universally objective attribute.

			--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 07:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Eldentyrell at 06:14, 28 February 2015

2015-02-28T06:14:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:14, 28 February 2015
Line 45:		Line 45:
	Is there a term other than "height X" you would recommend in order to describe the property of being the Xth block of a completely well-formed blockchain that obeys all the block validation rules (particularly no double-spends)? This is the property that SPV clients are not able to check. If there is a better name for this property I'll rewrite that section to use it.		Is there a term other than "height X" you would recommend in order to describe the property of being the Xth block of a completely well-formed blockchain that obeys all the block validation rules (particularly no double-spends)? This is the property that SPV clients are not able to check. If there is a better name for this property I'll rewrite that section to use it.

	I think the other issue here is my use of the term "valid transaction". I've been using that to describe a transaction that has been accepted by the network and that clients can safely assume is irreversible. I guess that term is sort of ambiguous; I can see how it could also be used to describe mempool transactions that aren't yet part of any block but could legitimately be included in the next one. What is the generally-accepted adjective for in-the-chain-and-safe-to-assume-is-totally-irreversible? I've substituted "~~irreversible~~ transaction" in the article where that was the intended meaning, but if there's a more widely-used phrase let me know.		I think the other issue here is my use of the term "valid transaction". I've been using that to describe a transaction that has been accepted by the network and that clients can safely assume is irreversible. I guess that term is sort of ambiguous; I can see how it could also be used to describe mempool transactions that aren't yet part of any block but could legitimately be included in the next one. What is the generally-accepted adjective for in-the-chain-and-safe-to-assume-is-totally-irreversible? I've substituted "accepted transaction" in the article where that was the intended meaning, but if there's a more widely-used phrase let me know. I also made a second edit to separate out "acceptance" from "degree of irreversibility" since "degree of irreversibility" is always measured the same way by all kinds of clients (number of confirmations, i.e. depth).

	[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 06:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)		[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 06:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Eldentyrell at 06:08, 28 February 2015

2015-02-28T06:08:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:08, 28 February 2015
Line 38:		Line 38:
	* I was referring to the statement that "the validity of a transaction is determined by its height", which is simply not true. A transaction is valid before and even if it is never mined.		* I was referring to the statement that "the validity of a transaction is determined by its height", which is simply not true. A transaction is valid before and even if it is never mined.
	--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 01:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)		--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 01:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


	* Ok		* Ok
Line 47:		Line 48:

	[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 06:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)		[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 06:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


	Full-chain is not well defined and isn't common terminology. If you are saying the Satoshi client is full-chain, then you probably mean full node. "full network node" or "full node" is common terminology and is used in the original Bitcoin whitepaper.		Full-chain is not well defined and isn't common terminology. If you are saying the Satoshi client is full-chain, then you probably mean full node. "full network node" or "full node" is common terminology and is used in the original Bitcoin whitepaper.

Eldentyrell at 06:02, 28 February 2015

2015-02-28T06:02:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:02, 28 February 2015
Line 38:		Line 38:
	* I was referring to the statement that "the validity of a transaction is determined by its height", which is simply not true. A transaction is valid before and even if it is never mined.		* I was referring to the statement that "the validity of a transaction is determined by its height", which is simply not true. A transaction is valid before and even if it is never mined.
	--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 01:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)		--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 01:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

			* Ok
			* Ah, now I see why we disagree: I don't consider the last block of an ill-formed chain of 345309 blocks to be "of height 345309".

			Is there a term other than "height X" you would recommend in order to describe the property of being the Xth block of a completely well-formed blockchain that obeys all the block validation rules (particularly no double-spends)? This is the property that SPV clients are not able to check. If there is a better name for this property I'll rewrite that section to use it.

			I think the other issue here is my use of the term "valid transaction". I've been using that to describe a transaction that has been accepted by the network and that clients can safely assume is irreversible. I guess that term is sort of ambiguous; I can see how it could also be used to describe mempool transactions that aren't yet part of any block but could legitimately be included in the next one. What is the generally-accepted adjective for in-the-chain-and-safe-to-assume-is-totally-irreversible? I've substituted "irreversible transaction" in the article where that was the intended meaning, but if there's a more widely-used phrase let me know.

			[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 06:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

	Full-chain is not well defined and isn't common terminology. If you are saying the Satoshi client is full-chain, then you probably mean full node. "full network node" or "full node" is common terminology and is used in the original Bitcoin whitepaper.		Full-chain is not well defined and isn't common terminology. If you are saying the Satoshi client is full-chain, then you probably mean full node. "full network node" or "full node" is common terminology and is used in the original Bitcoin whitepaper.

Lapp0: Undo revision 54657 by Lapp0 (talk)

2015-02-27T05:31:34Z

Undo revision 54657 by Lapp0 (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:31, 27 February 2015
Line 48:		Line 48:

	Finally, I am not deleting your content, I am deleting the wikis content because it is wrong. Please stop blindly reverting my edits, you removing spelling corrections indicates that you don't care about the accuracy of the wiki as much as maximizing the amount of text written by you on the wiki.		Finally, I am not deleting your content, I am deleting the wikis content because it is wrong. Please stop blindly reverting my edits, you removing spelling corrections indicates that you don't care about the accuracy of the wiki as much as maximizing the amount of text written by you on the wiki.
	~~--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])~~

	~~== Major Restructuring ==~~

	This page was riddled with incorrect uses of words and the creation of new terminology. This leaves the reader confused or mislead. I have restructured this page and attempted to remove most of the inaccurate parts. It's not that I "think it's suddenly no longer true", I know that it hasn't been true for three years and no one has caught it until now.

	--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])		--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])

Lapp0: /* Major Restructuring */ new section

2015-02-27T05:30:29Z

Major Restructuring: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:30, 27 February 2015
Line 48:		Line 48:

	Finally, I am not deleting your content, I am deleting the wikis content because it is wrong. Please stop blindly reverting my edits, you removing spelling corrections indicates that you don't care about the accuracy of the wiki as much as maximizing the amount of text written by you on the wiki.		Finally, I am not deleting your content, I am deleting the wikis content because it is wrong. Please stop blindly reverting my edits, you removing spelling corrections indicates that you don't care about the accuracy of the wiki as much as maximizing the amount of text written by you on the wiki.
			--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])

			== Major Restructuring ==

			This page was riddled with incorrect uses of words and the creation of new terminology. This leaves the reader confused or mislead. I have restructured this page and attempted to remove most of the inaccurate parts. It's not that I "think it's suddenly no longer true", I know that it hasn't been true for three years and no one has caught it until now.

	--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])		--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])

Lapp0: /* Major Restructuring */ new section

2015-02-27T05:30:21Z

Major Restructuring: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:30, 27 February 2015
Line 48:		Line 48:

	Finally, I am not deleting your content, I am deleting the wikis content because it is wrong. Please stop blindly reverting my edits, you removing spelling corrections indicates that you don't care about the accuracy of the wiki as much as maximizing the amount of text written by you on the wiki.		Finally, I am not deleting your content, I am deleting the wikis content because it is wrong. Please stop blindly reverting my edits, you removing spelling corrections indicates that you don't care about the accuracy of the wiki as much as maximizing the amount of text written by you on the wiki.
			--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])

			== Major Restructuring ==

			This page was riddled with incorrect uses of words and the creation of new terminology. This leaves the reader confused or mislead. I have restructured this page and attempted to remove most of the inaccurate parts. It's not that I "think it's suddenly no longer true", I know that it hasn't been true for three years and no one has caught it until now.

	--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])		--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:17, 28 February 2015
Line 15:		Line 15:
	[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 03:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)		[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 03:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

	This page looks very confused/wrong in many respects. I'm not sure how it can be fixed easily, since it is unclear what exactly it intends to say.		:This page looks very confused/wrong in many respects. I'm not sure how it can be fixed easily, since it is unclear what exactly it intends to say.
	* Generally "thin clients" do not include pruned full nodes, which have processed every block, but afterward discarded (and no longer store) them.		:* Generally "thin clients" do not include pruned full nodes, which have processed every block, but afterward discarded (and no longer store) them.
	* Even thin clients generally verify block heights as well as depth.		:* Even thin clients generally verify block heights as well as depth.
	* Thin clients never (neither for height nor depth) check blocks are valid ("well-formed"?). This is the fundamental difference between full nodes vs thin clients.		:* Thin clients never (neither for height nor depth) check blocks are valid ("well-formed"?). This is the fundamental difference between full nodes vs thin clients.
	* Transaction validity is independent of its inclusion in any blockchain.		:* Transaction validity is independent of its inclusion in any blockchain.
	--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 07:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)		:--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 07:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


	Luke, thanks for your thoughts. Regarding your points,		::Luke, thanks for your thoughts. Regarding your points,

	* Good point, I have partitioned "full-chain" into two separate subtypes (those which do and those which don't retain blocks after validating)		::* Good point, I have partitioned "full-chain" into two separate subtypes (those which do and those which don't retain blocks after validating)
	* SPV clients do not verify block height. I can take the existing 345308-block bitcoin blockchain, append a single block that re-spends coins I sent two years ago, and use that 345309-block chain to fool an SPV client. By wasting hashpower whose market value is as most one block reward I can fool an SPV client with it, since it will appear to be the difficultywise-longest chain by one block. I cannot fool the Satoshi client this way even with the hashpower of the entire network at my disposal.		::* SPV clients do not verify block height. I can take the existing 345308-block bitcoin blockchain, append a single block that re-spends coins I sent two years ago, and use that 345309-block chain to fool an SPV client. By wasting hashpower whose market value is as most one block reward I can fool an SPV client with it, since it will appear to be the difficultywise-longest chain by one block. I cannot fool the Satoshi client this way even with the hashpower of the entire network at my disposal.
	* True. I think you may have hastily misread "transaction validity" as "block validity".		::* True. I think you may have hastily misread "transaction validity" as "block validity".
	* True. I think you may have hastily misread "transaction validity" as "block validity".		::* True. I think you may have hastily misread "transaction validity" as "block validity".

	Thanks again!		::Thanks again!

	[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 23:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)		::[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 23:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

	* Since this article deals with security, I do not think the distinction between pruned vs non-pruned is relevant - both nodes have equal security implications.		:::* Since this article deals with security, I do not think the distinction between pruned vs non-pruned is relevant - both nodes have equal security implications.
	* SPV nodes are aware that your invalid 345309th block has a height higher than any other chain, and thus verify the block height before considering that chain "best". They do not, as you mention, validate the contents of any of those blocks, and can be fooled this way, but that is unrelated to the block's height.		:::* SPV nodes are aware that your invalid 345309th block has a height higher than any other chain, and thus verify the block height before considering that chain ::;"best". They do not, as you mention, validate the contents of any of those blocks, and can be fooled this way, but that is unrelated to the block's height.
	* I was referring to the statement that "the validity of a transaction is determined by its height", which is simply not true. A transaction is valid before and even if it is never mined.		:::* I was referring to the statement that "the validity of a transaction is determined by its height", which is simply not true. A transaction is valid before and even if it is never mined.
	--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 01:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)		:::--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 01:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


	* Ok		:::;* Ok
	* Ah, now I see why we disagree: I don't consider the last block of an ill-formed chain of 345309 blocks to be "of height 345309".		:::;* Ah, now I see why we disagree: I don't consider the last block of an ill-formed chain of 345309 blocks to be "of height 345309".

	Is there a term other than "height X" you would recommend in order to describe the property of being the Xth block of a completely well-formed blockchain that obeys all the block validation rules (particularly no double-spends)? This is the property that SPV clients are not able to check. If there is a better name for this property I'll rewrite that section to use it.		::::Is there a term other than "height X" you would recommend in order to describe the property of being the Xth block of a completely well-formed blockchain that obeys all the block validation rules (particularly no double-spends)? This is the property that SPV clients are not able to check. If there is a better name for this property I'll rewrite that section to use it.

	I think the other issue here is my use of the term "valid transaction". I've been using that to describe a transaction that has been accepted by the network and that clients can safely assume is irreversible. I guess that term is sort of ambiguous; I can see how it could also be used to describe mempool transactions that aren't yet part of any block but could legitimately be included in the next one. What is the generally-accepted adjective for in-the-chain-and-safe-to-assume-is-totally-irreversible? I've substituted "accepted transaction" in the article where that was the intended meaning, but if there's a more widely-used phrase let me know. I also made a second edit to separate out "acceptance" from "degree of irreversibility" since "degree of irreversibility" is always measured the same way by all kinds of clients (number of confirmations, i.e. depth).		::::I think the other issue here is my use of the term "valid transaction". I've been using that to describe a transaction that has been accepted by the network and that clients can safely assume is irreversible. I guess that term is sort of ambiguous; I can see how it could also be used to describe mempool transactions that aren't yet part of any block but could legitimately be included in the next one. What is the generally-accepted adjective for in-the-chain-and-safe-to-assume-is-totally-irreversible? I've substituted "accepted transaction" in the article where that was the intended meaning, but if there's a more widely-used phrase let me know. I also made a second edit to separate out "acceptance" from "degree of irreversibility" since "degree of irreversibility" is always measured the same way by all kinds of clients (number of confirmations, i.e. depth).

	[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 06:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)		::::[[User:Eldentyrell\|Eldentyrell]] ([[User talk:Eldentyrell\|talk]]) 06:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

	I've always considered "the Nth block of a blockchain" to be an independent property from the validity of the blockchain. I'm not aware of any common term for this, but "height N" isn't generally used in that sense (although in most cases it's implied that one is talking about a valid blockchain, regardless of the height property). As for contrasting with SPV, I would suggest "fully-validat{ed,ing}" or "full node".		:::::I've always considered "the Nth block of a blockchain" to be an independent property from the validity of the blockchain. I'm not aware of any common term for this, but "height N" isn't generally used in that sense (although in most cases it's implied that one is talking about a valid blockchain, regardless of the height property). As for contrasting with SPV, I would suggest "fully-validat{ed,ing}" or "full node".

	When a user assumes a transaction is confirmed/irreversible is a subjective matter, and may be before the block is mined if they trust the sender or it's of low value, or long afterward if they don't trust the mining ecosystem's balance or the value is such that they need more security. So I think the term you want there is "confirmed", but it's not a universally objective attribute.		:::::When a user assumes a transaction is confirmed/irreversible is a subjective matter, and may be before the block is mined if they trust the sender or it's of low value, or long afterward if they don't trust the mining ecosystem's balance or the value is such that they need more security. So I think the term you want there is "confirmed", but it's not a universally objective attribute.

	--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 07:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)		:::::--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 07:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


	Full-chain is not well defined and isn't common terminology. If you are saying the Satoshi client is full-chain, then you probably mean full node. "full network node" or "full node" is common terminology and is used in the original Bitcoin whitepaper.		:Full-chain is not well defined and isn't common terminology. If you are saying the Satoshi client is full-chain, then you probably mean full node. "full network node" or "full node" is common terminology and is used in the original Bitcoin whitepaper.

	Your definition of transaction validity isn't common and is even incompatible with the Bitcoin whitepaper.		:Your definition of transaction validity isn't common and is even incompatible with the Bitcoin whitepaper.

	You added "A full-chain client trusts the [[Protocol_rules#Blocks well-formed\|difficultywise-longest]] block chain it can find." which is only true for SPV clients, so you can see why I would be confused as to what this poorly defined "full-chain" client does.		:You added "A full-chain client trusts the [[Protocol_rules#Blocks well-formed\|difficultywise-longest]] block chain it can find." which is only true for SPV clients, so you can see why I would be confused as to what this poorly defined "full-chain" client does.

	I don't think the bitcoin wiki is an appropriate place to redefine terminology.		:I don't think the bitcoin wiki is an appropriate place to redefine terminology.

	Finally, I am not deleting your content, I am deleting the wikis content because it is wrong. Please stop blindly reverting my edits, you removing spelling corrections indicates that you don't care about the accuracy of the wiki as much as maximizing the amount of text written by you on the wiki.		:Finally, I am not deleting your content, I am deleting the wikis content because it is wrong. Please stop blindly reverting my edits, you removing spelling corrections indicates that you don't care about the accuracy of the wiki as much as maximizing the amount of text written by you on the wiki.
	--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])		:--[[User:Lapp0\|Lapp0]] ([[User talk:Lapp0\|talk]])

	== Major Restructuring ==		== Major Restructuring ==