Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling Bitcoin

[jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk>]

This is not correct.

As only about 1/3 of nodes support BIP65 now, would you consider CLTV tx 
are less secure than others? I don't think so. Since one invalid CLTV tx 
will make the whole block invalid. Having more nodes to fully validate 
non-CLTV txs won't make them any safer. The same logic also applies to 
SW softfork.

You may argue that a softfork would make the network as a whole less 
secure, as old nodes have to trust new nodes. However, the security of 
all content in the same block must be the same, by definition.

Anyway, I support SW softfork at the beginning, and eventually (~2 
years) moving to a hardfork with higher block size limit and better 
commitment structure.

Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-12-17 13:27 寫到:

> 
> Illustration:  If SW is deployed via soft fork, the count of nodes
> that validate witness data is significantly lower than the count of
> nodes that validate non-witness data.  Soft forks are not trustless
> operation, they depend on miner trust, slowly eroding the trustless
> validation of older nodes over time.
> 
> Higher security in one data area versus another produces another
> economic value distinction between the two goods in the basket, and
> creates a "pay more for higher security in core block, pay less for
> lower security in witness" dynamic.
> 
> This economic distinction is not present if SW is deployed via hard
> fork.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev