<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3l</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3l</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2020-05-05&#xA;📝 Original message:&#xA;Good morning ariard and luke-jr&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Trust-minimization of Bitcoin security model has always relied first and&#xA;&gt; &gt; above on running a full-node. This current paradigm may be shifted by LN&#xA;&gt; &gt; where fast, affordable, confidential, censorship-resistant payment services&#xA;&gt; &gt; may attract a lot of adoption without users running a full-node.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; No, it cannot be shifted. This would compromise Bitcoin itself, which for&#xA;&gt; security depends on the assumption that a supermajority of the economy is&#xA;&gt; verifying their incoming transactions using their own full node.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The past few years has seen severe regressions in this area, to the point&#xA;&gt; where Bitcoin&#39;s future seems quite bleak. Without serious improvements to the&#xA;&gt; full node ratio, Bitcoin is likely to fail.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, all efforts to improve the &#34;full node-less&#34; experience are harmful,&#xA;&gt; and should be actively avoided. BIP 157 improves privacy of fn-less usage,&#xA;&gt; while providing no real benefits to full node users (compared to more&#xA;&gt; efficient protocols like Stratum/Electrum).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; For this reason, myself and a few others oppose merging support for BIP 157 in&#xA;&gt; Core.&#xA;&#xA;BIP 157 can be implemented as a separate daemon that processes the blocks downloaded by an attached `bitcoind`, i.e. what Wasabi does.&#xA;&#xA;The intention, as I understood it, of putting BIP157 directly into bitcoind was to essentially force all `bitcoind` users to possibly service BIP157 clients, in the hope that a BIP157 client can contact any arbitrary fullnode to get BIP157 service.&#xA;This is supposed to improve to the situation relative to e.g. Electrum, where there are far fewer Electrum servers than fullnodes.&#xA;&#xA;Of course, as ariard computes, deploying BIP157 could lead to an effective DDoS on the fullnode network if a large number of BIP157 clients arise.&#xA;Though maybe this will not occur very fast?  We hope?&#xA;&#xA;It seems to me that the thing that *could* be done would be to have watchtowers provide light-client services, since that seems to be the major business model of watchtowers, as suggested by ariard as well.&#xA;This is still less than ideal, but maybe is better than nothing.&#xA;&#xA;Regards,&#xA;ZmnSCPxj</html></oembed>