Could Neutrino technically as side-effect, incentivize centralization of the bitcoin network?How is the human end of the Bitcoin network secured?Is Bitcoin network an Asynchronous network or a synchronous network?Does changing mining algorithm(SHA256) of bitcoin cause any side effect?How does the lightning network solve double spending?How is Bitcoin itself represented (either technically or code level)Could a large group of miners theoretically lower the network hashrate to manipulate difficulty?Calculate the difficulty of Bitcoin networkWhy should SPV nodes operate on the P2P network?Can someone please explain the meaning of “neutrino” within the lightning network?Neutrino enables full mining nodes without storing the entire chain?

gnu parallel how to use with ffmpeg

Illegal assignment from SObject to Contact

What are the spoon bit of a spoon and fork bit of a fork called?

Can I get candy for a Pokemon I haven't caught yet?

What is a Recurrent Neural Network?

What's the metal clinking sound at the end of credits in Avengers: Endgame?

Transfer over $10k

Python "triplet" dictionary?

Reversing the direction of the arrow in gb4e

When did stoichiometry begin to be taught in U.S. high schools?

Why do TACANs not have a symbol for compulsory reporting?

When India mathematicians did know Euclid's Elements?

Why was Germany not as successful as other Europeans in establishing overseas colonies?

Packing rectangles: Does rotation ever help?

How to determine the actual or "true" resolution of a digital photograph?

Confusion about capacitors

Please, smoke with good manners

How to stop co-workers from teasing me because I know Russian?

Why is current rating for multicore cable lower than single core with the same cross section?

"ne paelici suspectaretur" (Tacitus)

What is the difference between `a[bc]d` (brackets) and `ab,cd` (braces)?

Cannot populate data in lightning data table

Does jamais mean always or never in this context?

Do I have to worry about players making “bad” choices on level up?



Could Neutrino technically as side-effect, incentivize centralization of the bitcoin network?


How is the human end of the Bitcoin network secured?Is Bitcoin network an Asynchronous network or a synchronous network?Does changing mining algorithm(SHA256) of bitcoin cause any side effect?How does the lightning network solve double spending?How is Bitcoin itself represented (either technically or code level)Could a large group of miners theoretically lower the network hashrate to manipulate difficulty?Calculate the difficulty of Bitcoin networkWhy should SPV nodes operate on the P2P network?Can someone please explain the meaning of “neutrino” within the lightning network?Neutrino enables full mining nodes without storing the entire chain?













7















TWO questions on Neutrino::



1) Could Neutrino technically as side-effect, incentivize centralization of the bitcoin network? Or other formulation: ...hinder higher degree of decentralization?



Why I am asking: This article by Dorier pointed me to this thoughts. https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/neutrino-is-dangerous-for-my-self-sovereignty-18fac5bcdc25



He basically says neutrino users are still not FULL NODES. Therefore doesnt make sense to switch from SPVs or webwallets to neutrino enabled wallets....



Could the technical knowledgable members here maybe do an explanation, why Dorier might come up with this thesis, what technical arguments are speaking for it? Or do you think its a baseless thesis?



2) He basically says, why do we need neutrino, its essentially the same as SPV... Why is there technical advantages with Neutrino, what are its differentiators to SPV?



Thank you










share|improve this question


























    7















    TWO questions on Neutrino::



    1) Could Neutrino technically as side-effect, incentivize centralization of the bitcoin network? Or other formulation: ...hinder higher degree of decentralization?



    Why I am asking: This article by Dorier pointed me to this thoughts. https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/neutrino-is-dangerous-for-my-self-sovereignty-18fac5bcdc25



    He basically says neutrino users are still not FULL NODES. Therefore doesnt make sense to switch from SPVs or webwallets to neutrino enabled wallets....



    Could the technical knowledgable members here maybe do an explanation, why Dorier might come up with this thesis, what technical arguments are speaking for it? Or do you think its a baseless thesis?



    2) He basically says, why do we need neutrino, its essentially the same as SPV... Why is there technical advantages with Neutrino, what are its differentiators to SPV?



    Thank you










    share|improve this question
























      7












      7








      7








      TWO questions on Neutrino::



      1) Could Neutrino technically as side-effect, incentivize centralization of the bitcoin network? Or other formulation: ...hinder higher degree of decentralization?



      Why I am asking: This article by Dorier pointed me to this thoughts. https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/neutrino-is-dangerous-for-my-self-sovereignty-18fac5bcdc25



      He basically says neutrino users are still not FULL NODES. Therefore doesnt make sense to switch from SPVs or webwallets to neutrino enabled wallets....



      Could the technical knowledgable members here maybe do an explanation, why Dorier might come up with this thesis, what technical arguments are speaking for it? Or do you think its a baseless thesis?



      2) He basically says, why do we need neutrino, its essentially the same as SPV... Why is there technical advantages with Neutrino, what are its differentiators to SPV?



      Thank you










      share|improve this question














      TWO questions on Neutrino::



      1) Could Neutrino technically as side-effect, incentivize centralization of the bitcoin network? Or other formulation: ...hinder higher degree of decentralization?



      Why I am asking: This article by Dorier pointed me to this thoughts. https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/neutrino-is-dangerous-for-my-self-sovereignty-18fac5bcdc25



      He basically says neutrino users are still not FULL NODES. Therefore doesnt make sense to switch from SPVs or webwallets to neutrino enabled wallets....



      Could the technical knowledgable members here maybe do an explanation, why Dorier might come up with this thesis, what technical arguments are speaking for it? Or do you think its a baseless thesis?



      2) He basically says, why do we need neutrino, its essentially the same as SPV... Why is there technical advantages with Neutrino, what are its differentiators to SPV?



      Thank you







      bitcoin-core wallet bitcoincore-development neutrino






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Apr 24 at 17:49









      johnsmiththelirdjohnsmiththelird

      794




      794




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8














          Dorier is correct that Neutrino/SPV nodes are not full nodes, because they do not verify the entirety of the blockchain, leaving potential room for attack. However, the portrayal that Neutrino is no better than other SPV modes is not correct.



          Neutrino is a form of SPV which improves greatly over other implementations in regards to privacy. All SPV modes inherently leak some hints about transactions you wish to receive because the information must be queried. Neutrino improves over previous SPV modes by limiting precision of information leaked to the blocks which contain the transactions they are concerned with. A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur.




          The trouble with SPV nodes is that they only verify that transactions have occurred using some SPV proofs, but they do not guarantee that you are on the correct, most proof-of-work chain. Any single deviation of the full validation rules could fork off onto a separate chain, where the full nodes would reject the chain which SPV users might follow.



          To give a concrete example, the maximum block size is part of the validation rules. A full node will never accept a block which is over the allowed size. An SPV node may accept any sized block as truthful, because it doesn't know the block size and cannot measure it - it only receives the block header and it must trust the servers delivering the block header information to have properly validated the information.



          The only way to counter this is to perform all of validation rules expected by a full node, which includes the block size, and therefore, requires you to receive all of the transactions in a block to measure its size.



          Another validation not performed by current SPV modes is the rules regarding the coinbase transaction, which mints new coins. Deviation from this rule could lead to inflation of the supply of coins on the chain followed by an SPV node, who would be none the wiser.




          The above do not mean that SPV nodes are inherently bad or must necessarily be avoided - but highlights that there is an attack surface which SPV nodes are vulnerable to, but which full nodes are immune to by design.



          The concern that Dorier and others have, is that if it becomes commonplace to ditch running full nodes because of the expectation that a Neutrino node is good enough, then full nodes might begin dropping off the network and leaving fewer and fewer entities responsible for the validation of the full set of rules. If an overwhelming majority of nodes simply follow the rules of a few validators, then protection of the economic majority against inflation and block size expansion would be weakened compared to a network where a majority of people validate all of the rules.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 1





            "A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur." Seems like technically, all querying occurs, and thus no information is leaked because there is no division into queried/not queried.

            – Acccumulation
            Apr 24 at 21:46











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "308"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f87271%2fcould-neutrino-technically-as-side-effect-incentivize-centralization-of-the-bit%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          8














          Dorier is correct that Neutrino/SPV nodes are not full nodes, because they do not verify the entirety of the blockchain, leaving potential room for attack. However, the portrayal that Neutrino is no better than other SPV modes is not correct.



          Neutrino is a form of SPV which improves greatly over other implementations in regards to privacy. All SPV modes inherently leak some hints about transactions you wish to receive because the information must be queried. Neutrino improves over previous SPV modes by limiting precision of information leaked to the blocks which contain the transactions they are concerned with. A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur.




          The trouble with SPV nodes is that they only verify that transactions have occurred using some SPV proofs, but they do not guarantee that you are on the correct, most proof-of-work chain. Any single deviation of the full validation rules could fork off onto a separate chain, where the full nodes would reject the chain which SPV users might follow.



          To give a concrete example, the maximum block size is part of the validation rules. A full node will never accept a block which is over the allowed size. An SPV node may accept any sized block as truthful, because it doesn't know the block size and cannot measure it - it only receives the block header and it must trust the servers delivering the block header information to have properly validated the information.



          The only way to counter this is to perform all of validation rules expected by a full node, which includes the block size, and therefore, requires you to receive all of the transactions in a block to measure its size.



          Another validation not performed by current SPV modes is the rules regarding the coinbase transaction, which mints new coins. Deviation from this rule could lead to inflation of the supply of coins on the chain followed by an SPV node, who would be none the wiser.




          The above do not mean that SPV nodes are inherently bad or must necessarily be avoided - but highlights that there is an attack surface which SPV nodes are vulnerable to, but which full nodes are immune to by design.



          The concern that Dorier and others have, is that if it becomes commonplace to ditch running full nodes because of the expectation that a Neutrino node is good enough, then full nodes might begin dropping off the network and leaving fewer and fewer entities responsible for the validation of the full set of rules. If an overwhelming majority of nodes simply follow the rules of a few validators, then protection of the economic majority against inflation and block size expansion would be weakened compared to a network where a majority of people validate all of the rules.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 1





            "A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur." Seems like technically, all querying occurs, and thus no information is leaked because there is no division into queried/not queried.

            – Acccumulation
            Apr 24 at 21:46















          8














          Dorier is correct that Neutrino/SPV nodes are not full nodes, because they do not verify the entirety of the blockchain, leaving potential room for attack. However, the portrayal that Neutrino is no better than other SPV modes is not correct.



          Neutrino is a form of SPV which improves greatly over other implementations in regards to privacy. All SPV modes inherently leak some hints about transactions you wish to receive because the information must be queried. Neutrino improves over previous SPV modes by limiting precision of information leaked to the blocks which contain the transactions they are concerned with. A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur.




          The trouble with SPV nodes is that they only verify that transactions have occurred using some SPV proofs, but they do not guarantee that you are on the correct, most proof-of-work chain. Any single deviation of the full validation rules could fork off onto a separate chain, where the full nodes would reject the chain which SPV users might follow.



          To give a concrete example, the maximum block size is part of the validation rules. A full node will never accept a block which is over the allowed size. An SPV node may accept any sized block as truthful, because it doesn't know the block size and cannot measure it - it only receives the block header and it must trust the servers delivering the block header information to have properly validated the information.



          The only way to counter this is to perform all of validation rules expected by a full node, which includes the block size, and therefore, requires you to receive all of the transactions in a block to measure its size.



          Another validation not performed by current SPV modes is the rules regarding the coinbase transaction, which mints new coins. Deviation from this rule could lead to inflation of the supply of coins on the chain followed by an SPV node, who would be none the wiser.




          The above do not mean that SPV nodes are inherently bad or must necessarily be avoided - but highlights that there is an attack surface which SPV nodes are vulnerable to, but which full nodes are immune to by design.



          The concern that Dorier and others have, is that if it becomes commonplace to ditch running full nodes because of the expectation that a Neutrino node is good enough, then full nodes might begin dropping off the network and leaving fewer and fewer entities responsible for the validation of the full set of rules. If an overwhelming majority of nodes simply follow the rules of a few validators, then protection of the economic majority against inflation and block size expansion would be weakened compared to a network where a majority of people validate all of the rules.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 1





            "A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur." Seems like technically, all querying occurs, and thus no information is leaked because there is no division into queried/not queried.

            – Acccumulation
            Apr 24 at 21:46













          8












          8








          8







          Dorier is correct that Neutrino/SPV nodes are not full nodes, because they do not verify the entirety of the blockchain, leaving potential room for attack. However, the portrayal that Neutrino is no better than other SPV modes is not correct.



          Neutrino is a form of SPV which improves greatly over other implementations in regards to privacy. All SPV modes inherently leak some hints about transactions you wish to receive because the information must be queried. Neutrino improves over previous SPV modes by limiting precision of information leaked to the blocks which contain the transactions they are concerned with. A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur.




          The trouble with SPV nodes is that they only verify that transactions have occurred using some SPV proofs, but they do not guarantee that you are on the correct, most proof-of-work chain. Any single deviation of the full validation rules could fork off onto a separate chain, where the full nodes would reject the chain which SPV users might follow.



          To give a concrete example, the maximum block size is part of the validation rules. A full node will never accept a block which is over the allowed size. An SPV node may accept any sized block as truthful, because it doesn't know the block size and cannot measure it - it only receives the block header and it must trust the servers delivering the block header information to have properly validated the information.



          The only way to counter this is to perform all of validation rules expected by a full node, which includes the block size, and therefore, requires you to receive all of the transactions in a block to measure its size.



          Another validation not performed by current SPV modes is the rules regarding the coinbase transaction, which mints new coins. Deviation from this rule could lead to inflation of the supply of coins on the chain followed by an SPV node, who would be none the wiser.




          The above do not mean that SPV nodes are inherently bad or must necessarily be avoided - but highlights that there is an attack surface which SPV nodes are vulnerable to, but which full nodes are immune to by design.



          The concern that Dorier and others have, is that if it becomes commonplace to ditch running full nodes because of the expectation that a Neutrino node is good enough, then full nodes might begin dropping off the network and leaving fewer and fewer entities responsible for the validation of the full set of rules. If an overwhelming majority of nodes simply follow the rules of a few validators, then protection of the economic majority against inflation and block size expansion would be weakened compared to a network where a majority of people validate all of the rules.






          share|improve this answer













          Dorier is correct that Neutrino/SPV nodes are not full nodes, because they do not verify the entirety of the blockchain, leaving potential room for attack. However, the portrayal that Neutrino is no better than other SPV modes is not correct.



          Neutrino is a form of SPV which improves greatly over other implementations in regards to privacy. All SPV modes inherently leak some hints about transactions you wish to receive because the information must be queried. Neutrino improves over previous SPV modes by limiting precision of information leaked to the blocks which contain the transactions they are concerned with. A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur.




          The trouble with SPV nodes is that they only verify that transactions have occurred using some SPV proofs, but they do not guarantee that you are on the correct, most proof-of-work chain. Any single deviation of the full validation rules could fork off onto a separate chain, where the full nodes would reject the chain which SPV users might follow.



          To give a concrete example, the maximum block size is part of the validation rules. A full node will never accept a block which is over the allowed size. An SPV node may accept any sized block as truthful, because it doesn't know the block size and cannot measure it - it only receives the block header and it must trust the servers delivering the block header information to have properly validated the information.



          The only way to counter this is to perform all of validation rules expected by a full node, which includes the block size, and therefore, requires you to receive all of the transactions in a block to measure its size.



          Another validation not performed by current SPV modes is the rules regarding the coinbase transaction, which mints new coins. Deviation from this rule could lead to inflation of the supply of coins on the chain followed by an SPV node, who would be none the wiser.




          The above do not mean that SPV nodes are inherently bad or must necessarily be avoided - but highlights that there is an attack surface which SPV nodes are vulnerable to, but which full nodes are immune to by design.



          The concern that Dorier and others have, is that if it becomes commonplace to ditch running full nodes because of the expectation that a Neutrino node is good enough, then full nodes might begin dropping off the network and leaving fewer and fewer entities responsible for the validation of the full set of rules. If an overwhelming majority of nodes simply follow the rules of a few validators, then protection of the economic majority against inflation and block size expansion would be weakened compared to a network where a majority of people validate all of the rules.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Apr 24 at 19:28









          Mark HMark H

          1,21419




          1,21419







          • 1





            "A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur." Seems like technically, all querying occurs, and thus no information is leaked because there is no division into queried/not queried.

            – Acccumulation
            Apr 24 at 21:46












          • 1





            "A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur." Seems like technically, all querying occurs, and thus no information is leaked because there is no division into queried/not queried.

            – Acccumulation
            Apr 24 at 21:46







          1




          1





          "A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur." Seems like technically, all querying occurs, and thus no information is leaked because there is no division into queried/not queried.

          – Acccumulation
          Apr 24 at 21:46





          "A full node does not leak any information because all blocks are archived and no querying needs to occur." Seems like technically, all querying occurs, and thus no information is leaked because there is no division into queried/not queried.

          – Acccumulation
          Apr 24 at 21:46

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f87271%2fcould-neutrino-technically-as-side-effect-incentivize-centralization-of-the-bit%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

          三茅街道4182Guuntc Dn precexpngmageondP