rich1.0npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8https://nostr.ae/npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09 📝 Original message:A border router that is not able to serve blocks is still protecting consensus rules, that SPVs do not. If the network would only consist of SPV nodes only then e.g. a majority coalition of miner could increase their reward at will. Archives need a different solution. Regards, Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 09.04.2014, at 17:47, Mark Friedenbach <mark at monetize.io> wrote: > On 04/09/2014 09:09 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote: >> Yes, SPV is a sufficient API to a trusted node to build sophisticated >> features not offered by the core. >> SPV clients of the border router will build their own archive and >> indices based on their interest of the chain therefore the >> border router core does not need to store (and process) anything not >> needed for consensus, its memory >> or disk footprint would be as low as an optimal storage of UTXO. > > Storing zero full blocks does nothing to aid the network. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140409/7f11ea3a/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140409/7f11ea3a/attachment.sig>