📅 Original date posted:2015-12-17
📝 Original message:Doesn't a good soft fork signaling mechanism along with an activation warning system for non-upgraded nodes (i.e. BIP9, or even block version ISM for that matter) essentially fix this? I don't quite get why this should be an issue.
On December 17, 2015 10:52:39 AM PST, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <jl2012 at xbt.hk> 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151217/1cefd38f/attachment.html>;
Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1az…t2krq
2023-06-07 17:46:44
in reply to nevent1q…hqad
Author Public Key
npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqPublished at
2023-06-07 17:46:44Event JSON
{
"id": "c35c61810293395769649ca78fa4a3a9c01be0d80c7cd04ef15361e3a153af6c",
"pubkey": "e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f",
"created_at": 1686160004,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"46b1d48aa4e00b636e8dc4e9c37e717542bb528954bcd46114dd6b14e1119e69",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4fcfac0e13860a4bdeb77e96d57ef20e7e833d30152cd0489c9f0650e3be0420",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-17\n📝 Original message:Doesn't a good soft fork signaling mechanism along with an activation warning system for non-upgraded nodes (i.e. BIP9, or even block version ISM for that matter) essentially fix this? I don't quite get why this should be an issue.\n\nOn December 17, 2015 10:52:39 AM PST, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003eOn Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 \u003cjl2012 at xbt.hk\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This is not correct.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e As only about 1/3 of nodes support BIP65 now, would you consider CLTV\n\u003etx\n\u003e\u003e are less secure than others? I don't think so. Since one invalid CLTV\n\u003etx\n\u003e\u003e will make the whole block invalid. Having more nodes to fully\n\u003evalidate\n\u003e\u003e non-CLTV txs won't make them any safer. The same logic also applies\n\u003eto SW\n\u003e\u003e softfork.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003eYes - the logic applies to all soft forks. Each soft fork degrades the\n\u003esecurity of non-upgraded nodes.\n\u003e\n\u003eThe core design of bitcoin is that trustless nodes validate the work of\n\u003eminers, not trust them.\n\u003e\n\u003eSoft forks move in the opposite direction. Each new soft-forked\n\u003efeature\n\u003eleans very heavily on miner trust rather than P2P network validation.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e_______________________________________________\n\u003ebitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003ebitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003ehttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151217/1cefd38f/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "3fe7ca2086e3e1bdd29900e893432ed44175fa3913abaf8043ed26c568902516631077cc091e8c85e166dacca535ad260446586f52545d2f9b44fbf396bc2050"
}