Is validity of a transaction binary from a light-node's point of view?

Transactions in Bitcoin network don't have the finality property -- it is never (theoretically) true that a transaction can't be reversed some time in the future. Thus whether a transaction was confirmed or not is not a binary property.

The validity of a transaction as far as full-nodes are concerned is binary. However, looking at the specification of how light-nodes verify transactions, they use the number of confirmations as a proxy for validity. Since validity in this case is a function of confirmations it appears that it has no finality either -- from the light-node's point of view it is never (theoretically) true that a transaction can't be invalidated some time in the future.

Is this correct? I know that there is a heuristic of 6 confirmations, but that is arbitrary.



from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/F6ZEyw2
via IFTTT

Popular posts from this blog

Future of Bitcoin encryption and security in a QC era

How will the advancement of quantum computing impact the security of Bitcoin, and what steps are necessary to protect the network from this emerging threat? What role could lattice-based encryption play in safeguarding Bitcoin, and which of the current algorithms are best suited for this purpose? How would the implementation of such encryption technology be integrated into the existing Bitcoin infrastructure, and what challenges might arise during this process? What happens to existing addresses that rely on elliptic curve cryptography? Is there a way to seamlessly transition old addresses to the new system, or would users need to actively transfer their funds to new, more secure addresses? How could such a transition be designed to ensure user security while maintaining trust in the network? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/aZeY2fo via IFTTT
Read more

Possible rollback due to lazy reveal in BRC20?

Let's assume user A committed an inscription with {"op":"deploy", "tick": "test"} at block 100 (without revealing it yet). Then user B commits and reveals the exact same inscription at block 101. Because the indexer isn't aware that A's earlier commit was actually for "test," it recognizes B's "test" token as the official one. From blocks 101 to 199, users freely perform various "test" token transactions (e.g., "mint" , "transfer" ). However, at block 200, user A finally reveals their earlier commit. In that case, will the indexer roll back all "test"-related histories that happened between blocks 101 and 199? If so, can we really trust that all BRC20 tokens recognized by the indexer are "safely" the official ones? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/CsYKVTa via IFTTT
Read more

A way to recover scammed Bitcoin investment

I have learned the hard way that even the most seasoned investors can fall prey to malicious actors. When my Investment was stolen, I felt a sense of betrayal and anger. But then, I discovered this FINANCE TEAM, and their professionalism and unwavering commitment gave me a renewed sense of confidence. From the moment I reached out to this Finance Team, I was impressed by their attention to detail and their deep understanding of the Stock and real estate ecosystem. They listened patiently to my story and carefully analyzed the transaction history, leaving no stone unturned in their investigation. Throughout the recovery process, This Finance Teamkept me informed of their progress, providing me with regular updates and answering my countless questions with patience and understanding. Their unwavering dedication and determination gave me a sense of hope during a time of great uncertainty. To my astonishment, This Finance Team was able to recover a significant portion of my stolen Investme...
Read more