{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA512\n\n\n\nOn 9 April 2014 12:27:13 GMT-04:00, Tamas Blummer \u003ctamas at bitsofproof.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003eA border router that is not able to serve blocks is still protecting\n\u003econsensus rules, that SPVs do not.\n\u003eIf the network would only consist of SPV nodes only then e.g. a\n\u003emajority coalition of miner could increase their reward at will.\n\u003e\n\u003eArchives need a different solution.\n\nAny collective group that has a majority of hashing power will have no major issues running enough nodes that follow their rules to make SPV insecure anyway.\n\nThere's no good reason not to have SPV security nodes distribute block chain data, particularly block headers. It helps provide redundancy in the network topology and helps provide more resources for full nodes to sync up faster. For instance in a network with a large number of partial UTXO set nodes if those nodes are forwarding block data to each other they can get enough data to become fully fledged full nodes without putting all the load on the existing full nodes.  This is a good thing.\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: APG v1.1.1\n\niQFQBAEBCgA6BQJTRYdYMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8\ncGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhdwRB/46MAw7OHwnVkLHOD0g\nY4X6p1/QHgRisJIgpG2Y4nGVeAjOFleQWe4PWS4Wwdr4u0BDGPmJompiR3A99CaL\nMUPnxJhtdiUsomn6kI704f5pkrqslQGLzejWFb7/9WuQtvGm8RwnzIs7uAqKasni\nKJMn3jmqFIUcCEy9dePUdmMySCQj8qSxjGDdwZnwf8BZSdSLqd8dYiN0jQi/aA1I\n2hWWyyDK9V9yQ8peAg+1dfg754Tc76lj3mEQOD39Wu3Klb9mBF3+wQCW2tJYEj2E\nstzeOdFZsUNUIOKFb6mo0IoUipPOvrAkfm91ais+FIwlCf+k5KcwmAUXpV45rLHm\negCr\n=2vMf\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}