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 84852DA0 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:31:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9E14143 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:31:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MMV5c-1a82lu0Gn0-008HLE for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 22:31:08 +0100 Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id q126so69453450iof.2 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:31:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.157.85 with SMTP id g82mr627815ioe.144.1450387867435; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:31:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.49.200 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:31:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <2402050984d0076bf0a4556e10962722@xbt.hk> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 22:31:07 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:lrMvjquMIOhB5b1DqbAS4xV6lgc2dYDsshVXtdwzBj95PwaZ++W btLzCXMfnedJsC0sGgrfXeRNDNdtzdXDKcbkANoOU3k8FEV/3ed4jGMrF1d2I4m8gdi/MEc 7hHTRCv+8drZUZWVWVOmxmv/Rfa3ZEbiazmzb1LLKWTxBCHvBXTHs90YrvmuPeXGfbhfD6Z 6jxsHWHR5bVAU93HowdlQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:9NJdV+UFI3c=:xtYU+NtCgGvvjBoFtGqDPW VhKtWm28+9rbd+NUsWH00VY6CX+a2hoQKMQMitdcrtf0+hNlTVzlxZ1opVnhAtAiejB+JOBSt AoaS/spwXUy+q2cQ9EFRvG+ZE7hB4ufEpaEboXPYWR57AP1cgIIO/3PLO7vpxhvBHJHM3zkrA LxhxM9z2DNIvda3HJN+8qCJcmfwiish8Wl7KBjAf+TLo1v4O6EyBCDEJ5M+Dor72l/c7SK3h/ QbXf++HTysWdlVmcVkgrP2C/y6mX4h7yBoUQBYle07c5Jv2eKByqyP0A4jHVhExO4PFA7R3u+ UkBSYAfbHhr/iqBvb9BmYPsQofvG/wE5jPrIi89nkcF9PyNAYCpkISVBMM7/pK/g6sX3jj/K9 yuva4ApT9aDYFBBY5JNEco0dp6ZGuIWnkhjsGQWyHb1DoX6NnpVTNIdnQEAMtyx+F73dBmjw1 dzbXZEay/DdcM2pg47NVr+3Pjuc0m9ID7R84tpvkyYBFfGwNEsGfoAD+he45BHsVrXdszUJut vR38M2DHOTAjeOWfHPaISLg7YGskyq/bC+zNr+UKHJITE8TSVwEd9PPHknCBcB8R6oTds1Px2 F4autW+LWsMBoerGzLMlaMFDUKD8SFLiTStNAmBMxjUzOhwxLbN8ct/IkHYaLEM9dD8k01X8R ltsrCfbkviRW6kFkgR00g8ceYHhixrzjnxwPscGJg/vPXWbf28PwJRxhUldaX8WNlQ9cBR974 0WkwUmVcSjymXcvH X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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 21:31:09 -0000 While it is interesting to contemplate moving to a world with hard-fork only upgrades (deprecate soft-forks), now is possibly not the time to consider that. Someone can take that topic and make a what-if sketch for how it could work and put it on the wishlist wiki if its not already there. We want to be pragmatic and constructive to reach consensus and that takes not mixing in what-ifs or orthogonal long standing problems into the mix, as needing to be fixed now. Adam On 17 December 2015 at 19:52, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >