Thin Client Security: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Eldentyrell (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Eldentyrell (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
* A [http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28633866 thread] on bitcoin-dev | * A [http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28633866 thread] on bitcoin-dev | ||
* A [http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2584/is-reclaiming-disk-space-already-implemented-how-effective-will-it-be/2589 question] on bitcoin.stackexchange.com | |||
Revision as of 00:30, 15 January 2012
Recently there have been a number of proposals for bitcoin clients which do not store a copy of the entire block chain. I will refer to all such clients as "thin clients". This page is meant to be a place to try to make sense of the security and trust implications of the various schemes.
Thin Client Strategies
Simplified Payment Verification
This scheme is described in section 8 of the original bitcoin whitepaper.
BCCAPI
Clients are vulnerable to a double-spend attack against them by the server. Therefore, they are implicitly trusting it.
Electrum
Clients are vulnerable to a double-spend attack against them by the server. Therefore, they are implicitly trusting it.