Well in MY experience, the claim makes sense but feels like trusting a guard dog to bark at intruders—only if the dog isn’t bribed. The idea that SPV relies on honest nodes is like saying a democracy works as long as the majority isn’t corrupt. But let’s be real, "honest nodes" is a vague term. If a majority of miners or validators are incentivized to collude (like a cabal of 51% attackers), the system’s trust model crumbles. The white paper and some articles back this, but I’ve seen folks argue that "honest" is just code for "those with the most computational power," which isn’t exactly a moral judgment.
The vulnerability part? It’s like a firewall that only blocks known threats—good until a new exploit emerges. If an attacker floods the network with fake blocks, SPV users are basically reading a biased news source. But here’s the kicker: even full nodes aren’t foolproof. They rely on the same network to validate blocks, so if the network’s compromised, everyone’s in trouble. The solution? Diversify trust, like using multiple SPV clients or cross-checking with off-chain signals. But most people just trust the system because it’s easier.
Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/076dd8b8c2ba1fa2cd9ccbd694c5a1cbce88a0555920f7b6ae1331d41cf7cbb5