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 5781B1C76 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:29:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A735729B for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:29:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so119978160wic.1 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 06:29:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=EtRfhYgDzqniGSlTtqRJQuDwDfRSkFMF1d0931+gUsc=; b=WOi9HsP+bSr8ALghUWmr6zxp8bogEA8lwnIS0RzZdGakmYXF80KQ0ykRkMQlfZtTWK bsnZjdVdZBkRk6bzSkBeWD3X3bPinWoJIKU6kHwPjLapSODEjz/Tcs7TTU9V9jS59uPO 0XQUGxEMkHNfJe7ntR/qpq+/g6S4YBf48nqO2XtWAPulmGd2+8Mk8m1K9bdIreuNpwXd wM2OFPV6JY+xKzI8GzX9yST0fJrjO02c5/FXI4zu9nGWYmXlf/++kNJOxSQb8zO3M+h+ +HUuW770buwzYfIvK4oVrnL4hIV/+mfciJdlzEFPMarRSPYCSSbaKB+5OF/zCEha/fFX W3TQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTzRgxvSvvtZgZH3e7TIyQF8PTOD+ZFKd2rjzqo5UofLKRPq8PmlYCNND2ziV/ZoIlfVxu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.186.98 with SMTP id fj2mr12535591wic.58.1444051759324; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 06:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 06:29:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:29:19 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: GC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY! 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: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:29:21 -0000 On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:12 AM, GC via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Or, you know, enter some discussions on what exactly are the issues that SPV > clients face during soft forks and see if anything can be done (on all > sides) to mitigate the risks. This has already been discussed. The recommended risk mitigation mechanism for softforks it's just the same as the one for hardforks: unknown block version notifications.