Talk:Lightweight node: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Agree with deletion/merging |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:Didn't see this comment before adding my own contributions. Agreed this page should be deleted or merged with [[Thin Client Security]]. It looks like the author wanted to add a link to his own blogspam. Note that the phrase SPV is ambiguous, it was used in the whitepaper to mean a security model involving fraud proofs but later wallets like BitcoinJ implemented something similar which was much more insecure due to no fraud proofs. My view is we shouldn't use the phrase SPV at all. [[User:Belcher|Belcher]] ([[User talk:Belcher|talk]]) 22:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC) | :Didn't see this comment before adding my own contributions. Agreed this page should be deleted or merged with [[Thin Client Security]]. It looks like the author wanted to add a link to his own blogspam. Note that the phrase SPV is ambiguous, it was used in the whitepaper to mean a security model involving fraud proofs but later wallets like BitcoinJ implemented something similar which was much more insecure due to no fraud proofs. My view is we shouldn't use the phrase SPV at all. [[User:Belcher|Belcher]] ([[User talk:Belcher|talk]]) 22:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC) | ||
::I agree with deletion/merging to [[Thin Client Security]]. I don't even think "lightweight node" is an appropriate term (I often use "lightweight client" to emphasize that clients aren't peers), but it does look like Andreas Antonopoulos uses the term "lightweight node" in [http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1234000001802/ch06.html Mastering Bitcoin] so maybe this page should redirect to the thin clien security page. Also, re: Belcher's comment about not using the phrase SPV at all, I've always wanted to try rebranding that to something like Partial Payment Verification (PPV) or Incomplete Payment Verification (IPV), or maybe backronym it to Substandard Payment Verification or Superficial Payment Verification. I suspect that ship has sailed, though. --[[User:Harding|Harding]] ([[User talk:Harding|talk]]) 12:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:11, 16 January 2018
Thanks for creating this page, but it looks like it should just be a redirect to https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Scalability&redirect=no#Simplified_payment_verification - Mesh
- Didn't see this comment before adding my own contributions. Agreed this page should be deleted or merged with Thin Client Security. It looks like the author wanted to add a link to his own blogspam. Note that the phrase SPV is ambiguous, it was used in the whitepaper to mean a security model involving fraud proofs but later wallets like BitcoinJ implemented something similar which was much more insecure due to no fraud proofs. My view is we shouldn't use the phrase SPV at all. Belcher (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with deletion/merging to Thin Client Security. I don't even think "lightweight node" is an appropriate term (I often use "lightweight client" to emphasize that clients aren't peers), but it does look like Andreas Antonopoulos uses the term "lightweight node" in Mastering Bitcoin so maybe this page should redirect to the thin clien security page. Also, re: Belcher's comment about not using the phrase SPV at all, I've always wanted to try rebranding that to something like Partial Payment Verification (PPV) or Incomplete Payment Verification (IPV), or maybe backronym it to Substandard Payment Verification or Superficial Payment Verification. I suspect that ship has sailed, though. --Harding (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)