4

There's no design consideration in Neutrino / BIP157 for unconfirmed transactions, but it's not as much of a concession with context. A light wallet can effectively do nothing with information about an unconfirmed transaction as they can not verify anything about its validity to begin with. At best it is a suggestion that a transaction may have occurred, but ...


3

Why would a thin node want to know information like this ? They quite possibly don't care about exactly which block the transaction was included in, but they most certainly care about knowing the transaction was included in the blockchain at all. It just so happens that there is no easy way to prove the latter without proving which block it is included in. ...


2

Bitcoin Core, in its BIP37 implementation, will compute the Merkle proofs on the fly. It does not store the blocks' Merkle trees anywhere (only its root is stored).


1

TL;DR: A Merkle branch provides costly-to-fake indicator that a transaction is actually part of the blockchain. The cost of forging a Merkle branch is sufficiently high to deter some attacks on low-value transactions, but trivial to validate by the thin client. Full nodes and thin clients are distinguished by whether they independently process the whole ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible