📅 Original date posted:2016-02-06
📝 Original message:On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 04:11:58PM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 12:45:14PM -0500, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It would probably be a good idea to have a security considerations
> > > section
> >
> >
> > Containing what? I'm not aware of any security considerations that are any
> > different from any other consensus rules change.
>
> I covered the security considerations unique to hard-forks on my blog:
>
> https://petertodd.org/2016/soft-forks-are-safer-than-hard-forks
Oh, and to be 100% clear, I should say those are only *some of* the
unique security considerations - for starters the article is mainly
talking about uncontroversial hard-forks, and doesn't even delve into
economic attacks among other omissions. It's just an introductory
article.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000008320874843f282f554aa2436290642fcfa81e5a01d78698
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160206/848a2fc9/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 17:48:39
in reply to nevent1q…khqt
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 17:48:39Event JSON
{
"id": "a8ca102eaff24e426fe7f7ae053de6658b78f56c44fe137b94f81725db85baaf",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686160119,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"299dc342b2928a854d3cdebebdfa1b5d7d113553560926ba6670328be5b1c1ce",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cb8b4186ae223c3b8ea3d7b646ef0e7e02340712fcca1608a8c28e752871e6e3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-02-06\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 04:11:58PM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 12:45:14PM -0500, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Back \u003cadam at cypherspace.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e It would probably be a good idea to have a security considerations\n\u003e \u003e \u003e section\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e Containing what? I'm not aware of any security considerations that are any\n\u003e \u003e different from any other consensus rules change.\n\u003e \n\u003e I covered the security considerations unique to hard-forks on my blog:\n\u003e \n\u003e https://petertodd.org/2016/soft-forks-are-safer-than-hard-forks\n\nOh, and to be 100% clear, I should say those are only *some of* the\nunique security considerations - for starters the article is mainly\ntalking about uncontroversial hard-forks, and doesn't even delve into\neconomic attacks among other omissions. It's just an introductory\narticle.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000008320874843f282f554aa2436290642fcfa81e5a01d78698\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160206/848a2fc9/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "0a1a7c90ab76d4519ef54b9566ae64c93b8ef4110f0e5c1fea86f2668064d5c040d2fbb7a47ea3f9addf23c8fe803a443751577a31d0b174814306be0d8fec7c"
}