3 ms·
Note that this is a mostly theoretical weakness: the cost to attack is orders of magnitude higher than cost of simply creating fake blocks, which are almost jus
by petertodd 8y ago
Note that this is a mostly theoretical weakness: the cost to attack is orders of magnitude higher than cost of simply creating fake blocks, which are almost just as good at defauding SPV clients (particularly when you have a pile of money left over by using the cheaper attack!).
Anyway, not many SPV clients actually exist these days - instead it's much more common for "lite" wallets to actually use trusted servers.
- tCfD 8y agoThen these so-called 'lite' wallets should be referred to with a much more contextually pertinent description such as 'trustful' wallets.
- uryga 8y agowith a tinfoil hat on, you could say that this is a very convenient rebranding ;)
- petertodd 8y agoI wish they were frankly. Unfortunately there's endless dishonesty and fraud in the blockchain world in projects denying that their solutions involve huge amounts of trust; that's just a mild example out of many.
- onecooldev24 8y agolite wallets are NOT 'trustful' wallets.
- Luke-Jr 8y agoIt can't actually be used to exploit SPV clients at all, since having even a single destination address puts the transaction over 64 bytes in size.