The Stateless Client Concept

[lithp]

@vbuterin

The problem is that it’s the miner’s responsibility to update the witness correctly, and we don’t want to add opportunities for miners to give themselves free money by deliberately adding bad witnesses.

Oh, I guess didn’t describe it properly.

@lithp

In order for other nodes to be able to know it was an invalid transaction the witness, or at least a hash of it, needs to be inside the signed part of the transaction.

This is important for the reason you described. There would need to be a new transaction type which includes a hash of the witness. Miners could then provide the witness matching that hash to prove the transaction tried to use an address it didn’t provide.

I had thought this would let you make stateless clients without assuming EIP 648 but just realized it only pushes the problem one level down; miners can still DOS other miners by sending out blocks with witnesses which don’t prove all addresses which the block accesses.

So I suppose something like EIP 648 is necessary, and it’s much simpler too.