📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28
📝 Original message:>
> Let me try to answer this question. Softfork is beneficial to non-mining
> full nodes as they will follow the majority chain.
That is not a benefit. That is a description of what the software will do,
but not why you would want it.
In case this seems like a pedantic point, consider the consequences of
following a chain you aren't checking properly. You get SPV level security
and might calculate a corrupted ledger.
In the case of P2SH, I could make a transaction that spends someone elses
money to myself. In the case of CLTV, I could ignore the locktime
requirement.
Now yes, eventually, the miner majority will correct and uncorrupt your
ledger for you. But by then it might be too late, you may have already
acted upon the incorrect data by e.g. selling me lots of stuff that I paid
for with somebody else's coins. If you don't care about that risk, hey,
switch to an SPV wallet and save yourself a lot of disk space.
> In a hardfork, however, there is no mechanism to stop the old fork and we
> may have 2 chains co-exist for a long time.
>
There isn't any difference in how long the divergent state exists for. That
depends only on how fast people upgrade, which is unaffected by the rollout
strategy used.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/345ac195/attachment.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 17:41:36
in reply to nevent1q…fsv3
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 17:41:36Event JSON
{
"id": "5450c5cee048e1d5bc85f7e23ef9075726fc2308657186e4cafd6ea5f0c2a23b",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686159696,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f5bb1bf208994917ac3ec4154383520df2a8573df815c54d28bae4e41ef024c8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e85d5c0615167f8149b9f52ebf2f4823aefa2af01dec10d2179289d3f3d96c59",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b61e2e7ccbf4abd7f49715c62f4ac7a93cbdd5ead0316279c5f5fe9b18dd0aaa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e Let me try to answer this question. Softfork is beneficial to non-mining\n\u003e full nodes as they will follow the majority chain.\n\n\nThat is not a benefit. That is a description of what the software will do,\nbut not why you would want it.\n\nIn case this seems like a pedantic point, consider the consequences of\nfollowing a chain you aren't checking properly. You get SPV level security\nand might calculate a corrupted ledger.\n\nIn the case of P2SH, I could make a transaction that spends someone elses\nmoney to myself. In the case of CLTV, I could ignore the locktime\nrequirement.\n\nNow yes, eventually, the miner majority will correct and uncorrupt your\nledger for you. But by then it might be too late, you may have already\nacted upon the incorrect data by e.g. selling me lots of stuff that I paid\nfor with somebody else's coins. If you don't care about that risk, hey,\nswitch to an SPV wallet and save yourself a lot of disk space.\n\n\n\u003e In a hardfork, however, there is no mechanism to stop the old fork and we\n\u003e may have 2 chains co-exist for a long time.\n\u003e\n\nThere isn't any difference in how long the divergent state exists for. That\ndepends only on how fast people upgrade, which is unaffected by the rollout\nstrategy used.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/345ac195/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "c98f0b408b0779082e69bea8cde7887df2ae827bd83cf8176a103320af9f6b08faf346e697ea39b2c797be99ac4e70bcb27de872deab39869b56a59697be4f26"
}