{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09\n📝 Original message:A border router that is not able to serve blocks is still protecting consensus rules, that SPVs do not.\nIf the network would only consist of SPV nodes only then e.g. a majority coalition of miner could increase their reward at will.\n\nArchives need a different solution.\n\nRegards,\n\nTamas Blummer\nhttp://bitsofproof.com\n\nOn 09.04.2014, at 17:47, Mark Friedenbach \u003cmark at monetize.io\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On 04/09/2014 09:09 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Yes, SPV is a sufficient API to a trusted node to build sophisticated\n\u003e\u003e features not offered by the core.\n\u003e\u003e SPV clients of the border router will build their own archive and\n\u003e\u003e indices based on their interest of the chain therefore the\n\u003e\u003e border router core does not need to store (and process) anything not\n\u003e\u003e needed for consensus, its memory\n\u003e\u003e or disk footprint would be as low as an optimal storage of UTXO.\n\u003e \n\u003e Storing zero full blocks does nothing to aid the network.\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140409/7f11ea3a/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 495 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140409/7f11ea3a/attachment.sig\u003e"}