Why would running a light node riskier and subject to more frauds than a full node? We don't NEED a full...











up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1












I've been reading on light node and many have pointed out that the light node doesn't have the full blockchain and is riskier because they can't verify the transactions fully.



First, we can verify or validate the transaction on the website. I don't understand why do we need a full blockchain if we are not mining.



Second, doesn't miner verify the transactions before including into the block? In addition to that, the process of validating the block served like a double validation?



Third, when the block is added to the network, isn't it a third validation?



Forth, when the block has several more confirmations, isn't that a forth validation?



In this case, why do we need a full ledger? After a certain time lapse, many of the preceding blocks are seem redundant.



A light node, although doesn't have the full ledger since the genesis block, keeps a section of the most recent blocks, isn't that sufficient?



Why would a light node be riskier? Realistically, what are the chances of receiving incomplete or invalid blocks?










share|improve this question






















  • I am not implying full node is not necessary. I am wondering why is it riskier as a light node and the need of having a full ledger if you are not mining. Shouldn't the validation protocols sufficient to prevent fraudulent transactions? The full ledger is only an additional/optional step and without that will not actually make you riskier than a full node.
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 8:08

















up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1












I've been reading on light node and many have pointed out that the light node doesn't have the full blockchain and is riskier because they can't verify the transactions fully.



First, we can verify or validate the transaction on the website. I don't understand why do we need a full blockchain if we are not mining.



Second, doesn't miner verify the transactions before including into the block? In addition to that, the process of validating the block served like a double validation?



Third, when the block is added to the network, isn't it a third validation?



Forth, when the block has several more confirmations, isn't that a forth validation?



In this case, why do we need a full ledger? After a certain time lapse, many of the preceding blocks are seem redundant.



A light node, although doesn't have the full ledger since the genesis block, keeps a section of the most recent blocks, isn't that sufficient?



Why would a light node be riskier? Realistically, what are the chances of receiving incomplete or invalid blocks?










share|improve this question






















  • I am not implying full node is not necessary. I am wondering why is it riskier as a light node and the need of having a full ledger if you are not mining. Shouldn't the validation protocols sufficient to prevent fraudulent transactions? The full ledger is only an additional/optional step and without that will not actually make you riskier than a full node.
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 8:08















up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1






1





I've been reading on light node and many have pointed out that the light node doesn't have the full blockchain and is riskier because they can't verify the transactions fully.



First, we can verify or validate the transaction on the website. I don't understand why do we need a full blockchain if we are not mining.



Second, doesn't miner verify the transactions before including into the block? In addition to that, the process of validating the block served like a double validation?



Third, when the block is added to the network, isn't it a third validation?



Forth, when the block has several more confirmations, isn't that a forth validation?



In this case, why do we need a full ledger? After a certain time lapse, many of the preceding blocks are seem redundant.



A light node, although doesn't have the full ledger since the genesis block, keeps a section of the most recent blocks, isn't that sufficient?



Why would a light node be riskier? Realistically, what are the chances of receiving incomplete or invalid blocks?










share|improve this question













I've been reading on light node and many have pointed out that the light node doesn't have the full blockchain and is riskier because they can't verify the transactions fully.



First, we can verify or validate the transaction on the website. I don't understand why do we need a full blockchain if we are not mining.



Second, doesn't miner verify the transactions before including into the block? In addition to that, the process of validating the block served like a double validation?



Third, when the block is added to the network, isn't it a third validation?



Forth, when the block has several more confirmations, isn't that a forth validation?



In this case, why do we need a full ledger? After a certain time lapse, many of the preceding blocks are seem redundant.



A light node, although doesn't have the full ledger since the genesis block, keeps a section of the most recent blocks, isn't that sufficient?



Why would a light node be riskier? Realistically, what are the chances of receiving incomplete or invalid blocks?







blockchain mining-theory nodes full-node






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 22 at 5:09









Samantha

304




304












  • I am not implying full node is not necessary. I am wondering why is it riskier as a light node and the need of having a full ledger if you are not mining. Shouldn't the validation protocols sufficient to prevent fraudulent transactions? The full ledger is only an additional/optional step and without that will not actually make you riskier than a full node.
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 8:08




















  • I am not implying full node is not necessary. I am wondering why is it riskier as a light node and the need of having a full ledger if you are not mining. Shouldn't the validation protocols sufficient to prevent fraudulent transactions? The full ledger is only an additional/optional step and without that will not actually make you riskier than a full node.
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 8:08


















I am not implying full node is not necessary. I am wondering why is it riskier as a light node and the need of having a full ledger if you are not mining. Shouldn't the validation protocols sufficient to prevent fraudulent transactions? The full ledger is only an additional/optional step and without that will not actually make you riskier than a full node.
– Samantha
Nov 22 at 8:08






I am not implying full node is not necessary. I am wondering why is it riskier as a light node and the need of having a full ledger if you are not mining. Shouldn't the validation protocols sufficient to prevent fraudulent transactions? The full ledger is only an additional/optional step and without that will not actually make you riskier than a full node.
– Samantha
Nov 22 at 8:08












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote














First, we can verify or validate the transaction on the website. I don't understand why do we need a full blockchain if we are not mining.




What website? There's no website that defines the blockchain. All blockchain explorers just show the information. If you are relying on a website to check that your transaction is valid, then that is a central point of failure. What if whatever website you are using mistakenly says an invalid transaction is valid? Do you just blindly trust the website? This has happened many times in the past, especially with blockchain.info.



The whole point of the blockchain is to remove central points of failure and to remove trust in third parties. Relying on a website to tell you what is correct defeats that purpose.




Second, doesn't miner verify the transactions before including into the block? In addition to that, the process of validating the block served like a double validation?




Miners are supposed to verify transactions before including them in a block. Just because they are supposed to verify does not mean that they actually do. Just accepting a transaction that has been included in a block does not guarantee that the transaction is valid. What if a miner included an invalid transaction?



Again, the point of a blockchain is to remove trust in third parties. By trusting miners to have validated transactions, you are trusting a third party. Verifying a block after you receive it from someone else removes that trust in a third party because you yourself has checked that the block is valid.




Third, when the block is added to the network, isn't it a third validation?



Forth, when the block has several more confirmations, isn't that a forth validation?




Kind of (to both). But again, you yourself are not verifying the blocks if you are not running a node. You are trusting that someone else has verified the blocks. That is trust in a third party, which is what the blockchain is designed to avoid.




A light node, although doesn't have the full ledger since the genesis block, keeps a section of the most recent blocks, isn't that sufficient?



Why would a light node be riskier?




No. If I had sufficient hash rate, I could produce a block that has an invalid transaction and send it directly to your light node. This block with the invalid transaction that spends a nonexistent input and could be something that defrauds you. If you have not verified the entire blockchain and constructed the UTXO set, then you do not know that the transaction is invalid because it spends an nonexistent input. You cannot verify this for yourself. You are trusting a miner that the transactions is valid. This is riskier because you could inadvertently accept an invalid transaction and thus lose money.




Realistically, what are the chances of receiving incomplete or invalid blocks?




Pretty low. But the whole point of the blockchain is to remove centralization and trust in third parties. By using a light node, you are now trusting third parties and this increases your risk for being defrauded.






share|improve this answer





















  • I understand your point on 'trust' and eliminate 'intermediary' but realistically, isn't that duplicating effort and a waste of resources?
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 5:34






  • 2




    @Samantha yes, it is a duplicate effort relative to a centralized system where you just trust the central third party to behave honestly (eg Paypal), but I wouldn't say it is therefore wasteful - it just uses more resources in order to achieve a different goal. Building a networked system of value where you don't have to trust a third party is non-trivial, and the solution provided by Bitcoin allows users to independently validate the state of the network. As a user, you can trust someone else to do this validation for you, or you can do it yourself.
    – chytrik
    Nov 22 at 6:18










  • I understand this is based on the concept of blockchain. Let's not take into consideration to trust or not to trust. Technically, based on the validation protocols, is there a need to use the full ledger to validate?
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 7:50






  • 3




    Also, don't forget that the reason you can trust miners (by using light clients) is because they have an incentive to validate transactions before including them in a block. The reason that they have that incentive is because people (but perhaps not you) do run full nodes and would reject their blocks. While you, personally, may not actually have much reason to run a full node, the ecosystem as a whole very much does.
    – Pieter Wuille
    Nov 22 at 7:54






  • 1




    It is certainly not a needed step for everyone. But it is absolutely essential that enough parties do, otherwise the protections for everyone disappear.
    – Pieter Wuille
    Nov 22 at 9:08











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',
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%2f81269%2fwhy-would-running-a-light-node-riskier-and-subject-to-more-frauds-than-a-full-no%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








up vote
3
down vote














First, we can verify or validate the transaction on the website. I don't understand why do we need a full blockchain if we are not mining.




What website? There's no website that defines the blockchain. All blockchain explorers just show the information. If you are relying on a website to check that your transaction is valid, then that is a central point of failure. What if whatever website you are using mistakenly says an invalid transaction is valid? Do you just blindly trust the website? This has happened many times in the past, especially with blockchain.info.



The whole point of the blockchain is to remove central points of failure and to remove trust in third parties. Relying on a website to tell you what is correct defeats that purpose.




Second, doesn't miner verify the transactions before including into the block? In addition to that, the process of validating the block served like a double validation?




Miners are supposed to verify transactions before including them in a block. Just because they are supposed to verify does not mean that they actually do. Just accepting a transaction that has been included in a block does not guarantee that the transaction is valid. What if a miner included an invalid transaction?



Again, the point of a blockchain is to remove trust in third parties. By trusting miners to have validated transactions, you are trusting a third party. Verifying a block after you receive it from someone else removes that trust in a third party because you yourself has checked that the block is valid.




Third, when the block is added to the network, isn't it a third validation?



Forth, when the block has several more confirmations, isn't that a forth validation?




Kind of (to both). But again, you yourself are not verifying the blocks if you are not running a node. You are trusting that someone else has verified the blocks. That is trust in a third party, which is what the blockchain is designed to avoid.




A light node, although doesn't have the full ledger since the genesis block, keeps a section of the most recent blocks, isn't that sufficient?



Why would a light node be riskier?




No. If I had sufficient hash rate, I could produce a block that has an invalid transaction and send it directly to your light node. This block with the invalid transaction that spends a nonexistent input and could be something that defrauds you. If you have not verified the entire blockchain and constructed the UTXO set, then you do not know that the transaction is invalid because it spends an nonexistent input. You cannot verify this for yourself. You are trusting a miner that the transactions is valid. This is riskier because you could inadvertently accept an invalid transaction and thus lose money.




Realistically, what are the chances of receiving incomplete or invalid blocks?




Pretty low. But the whole point of the blockchain is to remove centralization and trust in third parties. By using a light node, you are now trusting third parties and this increases your risk for being defrauded.






share|improve this answer





















  • I understand your point on 'trust' and eliminate 'intermediary' but realistically, isn't that duplicating effort and a waste of resources?
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 5:34






  • 2




    @Samantha yes, it is a duplicate effort relative to a centralized system where you just trust the central third party to behave honestly (eg Paypal), but I wouldn't say it is therefore wasteful - it just uses more resources in order to achieve a different goal. Building a networked system of value where you don't have to trust a third party is non-trivial, and the solution provided by Bitcoin allows users to independently validate the state of the network. As a user, you can trust someone else to do this validation for you, or you can do it yourself.
    – chytrik
    Nov 22 at 6:18










  • I understand this is based on the concept of blockchain. Let's not take into consideration to trust or not to trust. Technically, based on the validation protocols, is there a need to use the full ledger to validate?
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 7:50






  • 3




    Also, don't forget that the reason you can trust miners (by using light clients) is because they have an incentive to validate transactions before including them in a block. The reason that they have that incentive is because people (but perhaps not you) do run full nodes and would reject their blocks. While you, personally, may not actually have much reason to run a full node, the ecosystem as a whole very much does.
    – Pieter Wuille
    Nov 22 at 7:54






  • 1




    It is certainly not a needed step for everyone. But it is absolutely essential that enough parties do, otherwise the protections for everyone disappear.
    – Pieter Wuille
    Nov 22 at 9:08















up vote
3
down vote














First, we can verify or validate the transaction on the website. I don't understand why do we need a full blockchain if we are not mining.




What website? There's no website that defines the blockchain. All blockchain explorers just show the information. If you are relying on a website to check that your transaction is valid, then that is a central point of failure. What if whatever website you are using mistakenly says an invalid transaction is valid? Do you just blindly trust the website? This has happened many times in the past, especially with blockchain.info.



The whole point of the blockchain is to remove central points of failure and to remove trust in third parties. Relying on a website to tell you what is correct defeats that purpose.




Second, doesn't miner verify the transactions before including into the block? In addition to that, the process of validating the block served like a double validation?




Miners are supposed to verify transactions before including them in a block. Just because they are supposed to verify does not mean that they actually do. Just accepting a transaction that has been included in a block does not guarantee that the transaction is valid. What if a miner included an invalid transaction?



Again, the point of a blockchain is to remove trust in third parties. By trusting miners to have validated transactions, you are trusting a third party. Verifying a block after you receive it from someone else removes that trust in a third party because you yourself has checked that the block is valid.




Third, when the block is added to the network, isn't it a third validation?



Forth, when the block has several more confirmations, isn't that a forth validation?




Kind of (to both). But again, you yourself are not verifying the blocks if you are not running a node. You are trusting that someone else has verified the blocks. That is trust in a third party, which is what the blockchain is designed to avoid.




A light node, although doesn't have the full ledger since the genesis block, keeps a section of the most recent blocks, isn't that sufficient?



Why would a light node be riskier?




No. If I had sufficient hash rate, I could produce a block that has an invalid transaction and send it directly to your light node. This block with the invalid transaction that spends a nonexistent input and could be something that defrauds you. If you have not verified the entire blockchain and constructed the UTXO set, then you do not know that the transaction is invalid because it spends an nonexistent input. You cannot verify this for yourself. You are trusting a miner that the transactions is valid. This is riskier because you could inadvertently accept an invalid transaction and thus lose money.




Realistically, what are the chances of receiving incomplete or invalid blocks?




Pretty low. But the whole point of the blockchain is to remove centralization and trust in third parties. By using a light node, you are now trusting third parties and this increases your risk for being defrauded.






share|improve this answer





















  • I understand your point on 'trust' and eliminate 'intermediary' but realistically, isn't that duplicating effort and a waste of resources?
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 5:34






  • 2




    @Samantha yes, it is a duplicate effort relative to a centralized system where you just trust the central third party to behave honestly (eg Paypal), but I wouldn't say it is therefore wasteful - it just uses more resources in order to achieve a different goal. Building a networked system of value where you don't have to trust a third party is non-trivial, and the solution provided by Bitcoin allows users to independently validate the state of the network. As a user, you can trust someone else to do this validation for you, or you can do it yourself.
    – chytrik
    Nov 22 at 6:18










  • I understand this is based on the concept of blockchain. Let's not take into consideration to trust or not to trust. Technically, based on the validation protocols, is there a need to use the full ledger to validate?
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 7:50






  • 3




    Also, don't forget that the reason you can trust miners (by using light clients) is because they have an incentive to validate transactions before including them in a block. The reason that they have that incentive is because people (but perhaps not you) do run full nodes and would reject their blocks. While you, personally, may not actually have much reason to run a full node, the ecosystem as a whole very much does.
    – Pieter Wuille
    Nov 22 at 7:54






  • 1




    It is certainly not a needed step for everyone. But it is absolutely essential that enough parties do, otherwise the protections for everyone disappear.
    – Pieter Wuille
    Nov 22 at 9:08













up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote










First, we can verify or validate the transaction on the website. I don't understand why do we need a full blockchain if we are not mining.




What website? There's no website that defines the blockchain. All blockchain explorers just show the information. If you are relying on a website to check that your transaction is valid, then that is a central point of failure. What if whatever website you are using mistakenly says an invalid transaction is valid? Do you just blindly trust the website? This has happened many times in the past, especially with blockchain.info.



The whole point of the blockchain is to remove central points of failure and to remove trust in third parties. Relying on a website to tell you what is correct defeats that purpose.




Second, doesn't miner verify the transactions before including into the block? In addition to that, the process of validating the block served like a double validation?




Miners are supposed to verify transactions before including them in a block. Just because they are supposed to verify does not mean that they actually do. Just accepting a transaction that has been included in a block does not guarantee that the transaction is valid. What if a miner included an invalid transaction?



Again, the point of a blockchain is to remove trust in third parties. By trusting miners to have validated transactions, you are trusting a third party. Verifying a block after you receive it from someone else removes that trust in a third party because you yourself has checked that the block is valid.




Third, when the block is added to the network, isn't it a third validation?



Forth, when the block has several more confirmations, isn't that a forth validation?




Kind of (to both). But again, you yourself are not verifying the blocks if you are not running a node. You are trusting that someone else has verified the blocks. That is trust in a third party, which is what the blockchain is designed to avoid.




A light node, although doesn't have the full ledger since the genesis block, keeps a section of the most recent blocks, isn't that sufficient?



Why would a light node be riskier?




No. If I had sufficient hash rate, I could produce a block that has an invalid transaction and send it directly to your light node. This block with the invalid transaction that spends a nonexistent input and could be something that defrauds you. If you have not verified the entire blockchain and constructed the UTXO set, then you do not know that the transaction is invalid because it spends an nonexistent input. You cannot verify this for yourself. You are trusting a miner that the transactions is valid. This is riskier because you could inadvertently accept an invalid transaction and thus lose money.




Realistically, what are the chances of receiving incomplete or invalid blocks?




Pretty low. But the whole point of the blockchain is to remove centralization and trust in third parties. By using a light node, you are now trusting third parties and this increases your risk for being defrauded.






share|improve this answer













First, we can verify or validate the transaction on the website. I don't understand why do we need a full blockchain if we are not mining.




What website? There's no website that defines the blockchain. All blockchain explorers just show the information. If you are relying on a website to check that your transaction is valid, then that is a central point of failure. What if whatever website you are using mistakenly says an invalid transaction is valid? Do you just blindly trust the website? This has happened many times in the past, especially with blockchain.info.



The whole point of the blockchain is to remove central points of failure and to remove trust in third parties. Relying on a website to tell you what is correct defeats that purpose.




Second, doesn't miner verify the transactions before including into the block? In addition to that, the process of validating the block served like a double validation?




Miners are supposed to verify transactions before including them in a block. Just because they are supposed to verify does not mean that they actually do. Just accepting a transaction that has been included in a block does not guarantee that the transaction is valid. What if a miner included an invalid transaction?



Again, the point of a blockchain is to remove trust in third parties. By trusting miners to have validated transactions, you are trusting a third party. Verifying a block after you receive it from someone else removes that trust in a third party because you yourself has checked that the block is valid.




Third, when the block is added to the network, isn't it a third validation?



Forth, when the block has several more confirmations, isn't that a forth validation?




Kind of (to both). But again, you yourself are not verifying the blocks if you are not running a node. You are trusting that someone else has verified the blocks. That is trust in a third party, which is what the blockchain is designed to avoid.




A light node, although doesn't have the full ledger since the genesis block, keeps a section of the most recent blocks, isn't that sufficient?



Why would a light node be riskier?




No. If I had sufficient hash rate, I could produce a block that has an invalid transaction and send it directly to your light node. This block with the invalid transaction that spends a nonexistent input and could be something that defrauds you. If you have not verified the entire blockchain and constructed the UTXO set, then you do not know that the transaction is invalid because it spends an nonexistent input. You cannot verify this for yourself. You are trusting a miner that the transactions is valid. This is riskier because you could inadvertently accept an invalid transaction and thus lose money.




Realistically, what are the chances of receiving incomplete or invalid blocks?




Pretty low. But the whole point of the blockchain is to remove centralization and trust in third parties. By using a light node, you are now trusting third parties and this increases your risk for being defrauded.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Nov 22 at 5:27









Andrew Chow

29.9k42161




29.9k42161












  • I understand your point on 'trust' and eliminate 'intermediary' but realistically, isn't that duplicating effort and a waste of resources?
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 5:34






  • 2




    @Samantha yes, it is a duplicate effort relative to a centralized system where you just trust the central third party to behave honestly (eg Paypal), but I wouldn't say it is therefore wasteful - it just uses more resources in order to achieve a different goal. Building a networked system of value where you don't have to trust a third party is non-trivial, and the solution provided by Bitcoin allows users to independently validate the state of the network. As a user, you can trust someone else to do this validation for you, or you can do it yourself.
    – chytrik
    Nov 22 at 6:18










  • I understand this is based on the concept of blockchain. Let's not take into consideration to trust or not to trust. Technically, based on the validation protocols, is there a need to use the full ledger to validate?
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 7:50






  • 3




    Also, don't forget that the reason you can trust miners (by using light clients) is because they have an incentive to validate transactions before including them in a block. The reason that they have that incentive is because people (but perhaps not you) do run full nodes and would reject their blocks. While you, personally, may not actually have much reason to run a full node, the ecosystem as a whole very much does.
    – Pieter Wuille
    Nov 22 at 7:54






  • 1




    It is certainly not a needed step for everyone. But it is absolutely essential that enough parties do, otherwise the protections for everyone disappear.
    – Pieter Wuille
    Nov 22 at 9:08


















  • I understand your point on 'trust' and eliminate 'intermediary' but realistically, isn't that duplicating effort and a waste of resources?
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 5:34






  • 2




    @Samantha yes, it is a duplicate effort relative to a centralized system where you just trust the central third party to behave honestly (eg Paypal), but I wouldn't say it is therefore wasteful - it just uses more resources in order to achieve a different goal. Building a networked system of value where you don't have to trust a third party is non-trivial, and the solution provided by Bitcoin allows users to independently validate the state of the network. As a user, you can trust someone else to do this validation for you, or you can do it yourself.
    – chytrik
    Nov 22 at 6:18










  • I understand this is based on the concept of blockchain. Let's not take into consideration to trust or not to trust. Technically, based on the validation protocols, is there a need to use the full ledger to validate?
    – Samantha
    Nov 22 at 7:50






  • 3




    Also, don't forget that the reason you can trust miners (by using light clients) is because they have an incentive to validate transactions before including them in a block. The reason that they have that incentive is because people (but perhaps not you) do run full nodes and would reject their blocks. While you, personally, may not actually have much reason to run a full node, the ecosystem as a whole very much does.
    – Pieter Wuille
    Nov 22 at 7:54






  • 1




    It is certainly not a needed step for everyone. But it is absolutely essential that enough parties do, otherwise the protections for everyone disappear.
    – Pieter Wuille
    Nov 22 at 9:08
















I understand your point on 'trust' and eliminate 'intermediary' but realistically, isn't that duplicating effort and a waste of resources?
– Samantha
Nov 22 at 5:34




I understand your point on 'trust' and eliminate 'intermediary' but realistically, isn't that duplicating effort and a waste of resources?
– Samantha
Nov 22 at 5:34




2




2




@Samantha yes, it is a duplicate effort relative to a centralized system where you just trust the central third party to behave honestly (eg Paypal), but I wouldn't say it is therefore wasteful - it just uses more resources in order to achieve a different goal. Building a networked system of value where you don't have to trust a third party is non-trivial, and the solution provided by Bitcoin allows users to independently validate the state of the network. As a user, you can trust someone else to do this validation for you, or you can do it yourself.
– chytrik
Nov 22 at 6:18




@Samantha yes, it is a duplicate effort relative to a centralized system where you just trust the central third party to behave honestly (eg Paypal), but I wouldn't say it is therefore wasteful - it just uses more resources in order to achieve a different goal. Building a networked system of value where you don't have to trust a third party is non-trivial, and the solution provided by Bitcoin allows users to independently validate the state of the network. As a user, you can trust someone else to do this validation for you, or you can do it yourself.
– chytrik
Nov 22 at 6:18












I understand this is based on the concept of blockchain. Let's not take into consideration to trust or not to trust. Technically, based on the validation protocols, is there a need to use the full ledger to validate?
– Samantha
Nov 22 at 7:50




I understand this is based on the concept of blockchain. Let's not take into consideration to trust or not to trust. Technically, based on the validation protocols, is there a need to use the full ledger to validate?
– Samantha
Nov 22 at 7:50




3




3




Also, don't forget that the reason you can trust miners (by using light clients) is because they have an incentive to validate transactions before including them in a block. The reason that they have that incentive is because people (but perhaps not you) do run full nodes and would reject their blocks. While you, personally, may not actually have much reason to run a full node, the ecosystem as a whole very much does.
– Pieter Wuille
Nov 22 at 7:54




Also, don't forget that the reason you can trust miners (by using light clients) is because they have an incentive to validate transactions before including them in a block. The reason that they have that incentive is because people (but perhaps not you) do run full nodes and would reject their blocks. While you, personally, may not actually have much reason to run a full node, the ecosystem as a whole very much does.
– Pieter Wuille
Nov 22 at 7:54




1




1




It is certainly not a needed step for everyone. But it is absolutely essential that enough parties do, otherwise the protections for everyone disappear.
– Pieter Wuille
Nov 22 at 9:08




It is certainly not a needed step for everyone. But it is absolutely essential that enough parties do, otherwise the protections for everyone disappear.
– Pieter Wuille
Nov 22 at 9:08


















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.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • 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%2f81269%2fwhy-would-running-a-light-node-riskier-and-subject-to-more-frauds-than-a-full-no%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

AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater