From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA9E8DF6 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:46:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 205F5107 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:46:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:58551 helo=server47.web-hosting.com) by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1a9dZ0-0014lK-Vw; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:46:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:46:06 -0500 From: jl2012 To: Jeff Garzik In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2402050984d0076bf0a4556e10962722@xbt.hk> X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: jl2012@xbt.hk X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:52:54 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling Bitcoin X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:46:08 -0000 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