Thin Client Security: Revision history

22 May 2018

• curprev 08:2008:20, 22 May 2018‎ Waldyrious talk contribs‎ 9,358 bytes +2‎ tweak category sort key

23 November 2016

• curprev 09:4209:42, 23 November 2016‎ Luke-jr talk contribs‎ 9,356 bytes −179‎ Remove inappropriate uses of SPV

25 February 2016

• curprev 22:2822:28, 25 February 2016‎ Pigeons talk contribs‎ m 9,535 bytes −11‎ →‎bitcoinj: URL change

6 June 2015

• curprev 19:2119:21, 6 June 2015‎ Evoskuil talk contribs‎ 9,546 bytes +43‎ →‎Full Node Clients: add libbitcoin-server

2 March 2015

• curprev 20:3720:37, 2 March 2015‎ Lapp0 talk contribs‎ 9,503 bytes −139‎ Removed link to ambiguous comment

28 February 2015

• curprev 18:1518:15, 28 February 2015‎ Lapp0 talk contribs‎ m 9,642 bytes +8‎ typo
• curprev 18:0818:08, 28 February 2015‎ Lapp0 talk contribs‎ 9,634 bytes −2,793‎ Replace "valid" with "irreversible" where appropriate without adding incorrect statements to the article.
• curprev 06:0806:08, 28 February 2015‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 12,427 bytes +6‎ Refine distinction between "acceptance" and "irreversibility"
• curprev 06:0306:03, 28 February 2015‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 12,421 bytes +2,781‎ Replace "valid" with "irreversible" where appropriate (see talk)

27 February 2015

• curprev 05:2205:22, 27 February 2015‎ Lapp0 talk contribs‎ 9,640 bytes −2,730‎ Attempted to remove all misuses of terms (especially "valid") and inventions of new terms (full-chain, super-well-formed), etc in order to make the article more sane. If you have any specific grievances, mention it in the talk page before reverting.
• curprev 01:3801:38, 27 February 2015‎ Luke-jr talk contribs‎ 12,370 bytes +617‎ Typo
• curprev 00:0500:05, 27 February 2015‎ Lapp0 talk contribs‎ 11,753 bytes −618‎ Undo revision 54648 by Eldentyrell (talk) - "Full-chain" isn't common terminology and the use of it makes the article confusing. This hasn't changed in the last few hours.

26 February 2015

• curprev 23:1923:19, 26 February 2015‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 12,371 bytes +618‎ As per Luke-Jr: pruned full nodes have processed every block, but afterward discarded (and no longer store) them
• curprev 18:2318:23, 26 February 2015‎ Lapp0 talk contribs‎ 11,753 bytes −258‎ See talk page
• curprev 07:5707:57, 26 February 2015‎ Luke-jr talk contribs‎ 12,011 bytes −44‎ Blocks never become orphans
• curprev 02:5702:57, 26 February 2015‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 12,055 bytes +258‎ Undo revision 54610 by Lapp0 - (difficultywise-)longer chains are harder to forge and therefore more trusted... this is the most basic principle of blockchain consensus.
• curprev 01:0701:07, 26 February 2015‎ Lapp0 talk contribs‎ 11,797 bytes −258‎ Undo revision 54428 by - Transactions don't become more valid with more block preceding it's proof. The vagueness of what Full-chain is should be elaborated on probably explaining it uses SPV proofs.

16 February 2015

• curprev 08:4108:41, 16 February 2015‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 12,055 bytes +258‎ Lapp0: misspellings corrected.

4 February 2015

• curprev 17:4817:48, 4 February 2015‎ ThomasV talk contribs‎ 11,797 bytes +210‎ →‎Electrum
• curprev 02:0202:02, 4 February 2015‎ Lapp0 talk contribs‎ 11,587 bytes −259‎ Undo revision 54031 by Eldentyrell (talk) --- Your undo added misspellings and incorrect statements.

2 February 2015

• curprev 09:0209:02, 2 February 2015‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 11,846 bytes +259‎ Correct, you misunderstood. Difficultywise-longer chain = more work spent on it = harder to forge = greater consensus.

19 January 2015

• curprev 22:2822:28, 19 January 2015‎ Lapp0 talk contribs‎ m 11,587 bytes −259‎ invalid transactions aren't considered valid. Transactions don't become more valid with more blocks. A transaction isn't more secure with more blocks before it (height) unless I'm misunderstanding the wording.

19 September 2014

• curprev 07:1707:17, 19 September 2014‎ Newar talk contribs‎ 11,846 bytes +4‎ →‎Other

7 June 2014

• curprev 21:5821:58, 7 June 2014‎ Burrito talk contribs‎ m 11,842 bytes −14‎ s/blockchain/block chain/

8 March 2014

• curprev 13:5413:54, 8 March 2014‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 11,856 bytes −2‎ fix naming

7 March 2014

• curprev 19:4119:41, 7 March 2014‎ Jcv talk contribs‎ m 11,858 bytes −1‎ →‎btcd]
• curprev 19:3319:33, 7 March 2014‎ Jcv talk contribs‎ 11,859 bytes +90‎ →‎Block Height as a Transaction Validity Check
• curprev 19:2219:22, 7 March 2014‎ Jcv talk contribs‎ 11,769 bytes +7‎ →‎Block Height vs. Depth

4 December 2013

• curprev 01:3901:39, 4 December 2013‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 11,762 bytes +192‎ restore Electrum

3 December 2013

• curprev 22:4522:45, 3 December 2013‎ ThomasV talk contribs‎ 11,570 bytes −22‎ →‎Server-Trusting Clients: rm Electrum, it is doing SPV since 2012

31 March 2013

• curprev 12:2112:21, 31 March 2013‎ Goonie talk contribs‎ 11,592 bytes +18‎ →‎BitCoinJ

8 January 2013

• curprev 09:0809:08, 8 January 2013‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 11,574 bytes +155‎ add link to post about clients which validate but also watch for difficultywise-longest invalid chains

3 December 2012

• curprev 18:2118:21, 3 December 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 11,419 bytes −2,315‎ Delete "Depth and Difficulty" section; it needs to distinguish between "download-all-headers" clients and "download last X headers" clients.
• curprev 16:1616:16, 3 December 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ m 13,734 bytes −9‎ →‎Depth and Difficulty
• curprev 16:1416:14, 3 December 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 13,743 bytes +1‎ No edit summary
• curprev 16:1216:12, 3 December 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 13,742 bytes +98‎ →‎Depth and Difficulty: expand on partial collision attacks
• curprev 16:1016:10, 3 December 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 13,644 bytes −165‎ move depth-and-diffuclty to be a subsection of "Block Height vs Depth"
• curprev 16:0916:09, 3 December 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 13,809 bytes +2,392‎ →‎Depth and Difficulty

1 December 2012

• curprev 12:1812:18, 1 December 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ m 11,417 bytes −2‎ →‎Block Height vs. Depth: fix typo

30 November 2012

• curprev 16:0316:03, 30 November 2012‎ Genjix talk contribs‎ 11,419 bytes +15‎ →‎Block Height vs. Depth

28 November 2012

• curprev 23:0323:03, 28 November 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 11,404 bytes −4‎ →‎Unused Output Tree in the Blockchain (UOT): typo
• curprev 23:0023:00, 28 November 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 11,408 bytes +13‎ →‎Server-Trusting Clients: Make BCCAPI/Electrum empty sections so they appear in the TOC
• curprev 22:5922:59, 28 November 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 11,395 bytes +228‎ →‎Unused Output Tree in the Blockchain (UOT)
• curprev 22:5422:54, 28 November 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 11,167 bytes +5‎ formatting
• curprev 22:4922:49, 28 November 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 11,162 bytes +219‎ mention that all clients use block *depth* to measure liklihood of orphaning
• curprev 22:4722:47, 28 November 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 10,943 bytes +43‎ replace "valid block" with "well-formed block" to avoid confusion of block-well-formedness with transaction-validity
• curprev 22:4522:45, 28 November 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 10,900 bytes +696‎ re-order sections, put height-vs-depth first since it is the fundamental difference between SPV and full-chain validation
• curprev 06:5906:59, 28 November 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 10,204 bytes +142‎ clarify that picocoin is SPV whereas libccoin does not necessarily commit to a specific level of validation
• curprev 06:5606:56, 28 November 2012‎ Eldentyrell talk contribs‎ 10,062 bytes +175‎ add picocoin/libccoin to SPV section

24 October 2012

• curprev 16:5916:59, 24 October 2012‎ Sgornick talk contribs‎ 9,887 bytes +22‎ Add to category Security.