<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">"Secure" and "client side validation" don't really belong in the same<br>
sentence, do they?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, client-side validation is mathematically secure, while SPV is economically secure.</div><div>I.e. it is secure if you make several assumptions about economics of the whole thing.</div><div><br></div><div>In my opinion the former is transfinitely more secure than the later.</div><div>But it's more of a philosophical question, sure.</div><div><br></div><div>The good thing about PoW-based consensus is that it is robust against version inconsistencies and various accidents of this nature up to a certain degree. But you hardly can depend on that: </div><div>You know, The Great Fork of 2013 was resolved through human intervention, Bitcoin nodes were not smart enough to detect that something is going awry on their own.</div><div><br></div><div>Naive proof-of-publication is very fragile in that respect, but you can easily bring back robustness. </div></div></div></div>