The core issue here is a misunderstanding of what constitutes true verification in Bitcoin. If you do not validate the chain from genesis you are not verifying in the cryptographic sense you are relying on assumptions about the honesty of your peers. SPV AssumeUTXO and UTXO commitments all introduce trust into the process at the point where you skip history. The degree of trust varies but the fundamental trade off is the same. You cannot claim the security properties of a fully validating node if your model depends on believing a snapshot or consensus from peers about past state.
The danger in treating peer agreement as equivalent to proof is that it changes the nature of Bitcoin from a system where dishonest peers can be detected to one where dishonest peers cannot be detected unless you are lucky enough to also be connected to at least one honest one. The whitepaper is clear on why proof of work exists to avoid precisely this reliance.
The core issue here is a misunderstanding of what constitutes true verification in Bitcoin. If you do not validate the chain from genesis you are not verifying in the cryptographic sense you are relying on assumptions about the honesty of your peers. SPV AssumeUTXO and UTXO commitments all introduce trust into the process at the point where you skip history. The degree of trust varies but the fundamental trade off is the same. You cannot claim the security properties of a fully validating node if your model depends on believing a snapshot or consensus from peers about past state.
The danger in treating peer agreement as equivalent to proof is that it changes the nature of Bitcoin from a system where dishonest peers can be detected to one where dishonest peers cannot be detected unless you are lucky enough to also be connected to at least one honest one. The whitepaper is clear on why proof of work exists to avoid precisely this reliance.