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 9055AE44 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:52:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 148A8108 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:52:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 186so66068155iow.0 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:52:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mKASeDwMicIwglkcr99JHZnnr0dw3De7mmT7xZ46Efo=; b=xC96bnn1nZqKVBSotdIq709noHVgx1vNxfdgZBn1jQh594TRZ/XP/gao417c21Aqg1 +Mmx169H+LlO3nJ692o0gL/WwbSSv2hofp8UMaYcRvx9E8OXpLo7IfqD7W7WS8g7gJ5y HM3GLef4CpPFnDuolQ5h3h+E01RDD4VPwgb7Jggn4cqqwva9KZyAgZgQDhE3UGCCX1It Z2EJ0Mo/+ulYCtJO3CHBgH350frIdBBa3G1QYQ6PumELS6IlZ8YsXuYsq2aUtOGYh2XF McLrhkpnMFDr58+wApeQyzF61OX/4C7qlHBJobTWdanbo86huE5aL5aOBO+NIuJLn8Hb mnoQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.185.133 with SMTP id j127mr51153576iof.91.1450378359538; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.79.8.198 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:52:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2402050984d0076bf0a4556e10962722@xbt.hk> References: <2402050984d0076bf0a4556e10962722@xbt.hk> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:52:39 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: jl2012 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c070a1ce90b8305271c86e1 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 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 18:52:40 -0000 --94eb2c070a1ce90b8305271c86e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 wrote: > 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. > Yes - the logic applies to all soft forks. Each soft fork degrades the security of non-upgraded nodes. The core design of bitcoin is that trustless nodes validate the work of miners, not trust them. Soft forks move in the opposite direction. Each new soft-forked feature leans very heavily on miner trust rather than P2P network validation. --94eb2c070a1ce90b8305271c86e1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk> wr= ote:
This is not correct.

As only about 1/3 of nodes support BIP65 now, would you consider CLTV tx ar= e 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 s= oftfork.


Yes - the logic applies to all soft forks.=C2=A0 Each so= ft fork degrades the security of non-upgraded nodes.

The core design of bitcoin i= s that trustless nodes validate the work of miners, not trust them.

Soft forks mo= ve in the opposite direction.=C2=A0 Each new soft-forked feature leans very= heavily on miner trust rather than P2P network validation.

--94eb2c070a1ce90b8305271c86e1--