4 ms·

It is correct. Here is the default assumevalid on mainnet Bitcoin: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/11adab39e6019935aa3abe1d8b3cb64cfc1472ce/src/chainpa

It is correct. Here is the default assumevalid on mainnet Bitcoin: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/11adab39e6019935aa3abe1d8b3cb64cfc1472ce/src/chainparams.cpp#L108 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/11adab39e6019935aa3a... > Anyway, you see this "full nodes don't validate the blockchain" nonsense a lot from altcoins that think they've found a neat-o way to get faster/cheaper transactions. I am not saying "full nodes don't validate the blockchain". I am explaining that full nodes (on both Bitcoin as well as Bitcoin Cash) don't validate historical blocks. This would take way too much time, and as I explain in the article doesn't really reduce trust in the software. Here is the mechanism by which the Bitcoin Core implementation uses "assumevalid": https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7f4db9a7c3549a36e45d70fc3c159367aa1e99a4/src/validation.cpp#L1875 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7f4db9a7c3549a36e45d...

Sir_Substance 8y ago
Checkpoint blocks are an interesting topic, but there's a mile between checkpoint blocks and "full nodes don't validate transactions so why bother keeping that block data around?". They're also not about trust, they're about protecting against DoS attacks: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Core_0.11_(ch_5):_Initial_Block_Download#Checkpoints https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Core_0.11_(ch_5):_Initial... Even with checkpoint blocks, a full node can elect to validate it's entire history if it chooses to, which again is a far cry from "block history data is worthless because full nodes don't validate it", a flagrantly untrue statement.
- tomtomtom777 8y ago
  Bitcoin Core, since 0.14 doesn't use checkpoints. It uses "assumevalid" which assumes the signatures of transactions are valid. > "block history data is worthless because full nodes don't validate it" Please don't misquote people.
- tylersmith 8y ago
  They could elect to validate all historic blocks before the UXTO set commitment too if they chose to.

Sir_Substance 8y ago

Checkpoint blocks are an interesting topic, but there's a mile between checkpoint blocks and "full nodes don't validate transactions so why bother keeping that block data around?". They're also not about trust, they're about protecting against DoS attacks: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Core_0.11_(ch_5):_Initial_Block_Download#Checkpoints https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Core_0.11_(ch_5):_Initial... Even with checkpoint blocks, a full node can elect to validate it's entire history if it chooses to, which again is a far cry from "block history data is worthless because full nodes don't validate it", a flagrantly untrue statement.

tomtomtom777 8y ago
Bitcoin Core, since 0.14 doesn't use checkpoints. It uses "assumevalid" which assumes the signatures of transactions are valid. > "block history data is worthless because full nodes don't validate it" Please don't misquote people.
tylersmith 8y ago
They could elect to validate all historic blocks before the UXTO set commitment too if they chose to.