📅 Original date posted:2015-12-18
📝 Original message:On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
<mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> 2) The risk of an old full node wallet accepting a transaction whose
> coins passed through a script that depends on the softforked rules.
>
There's that, but there's also a case where an attacker creates a
majority chain that follows the old rules but not the new ones.
Non-upgraded nodes would accept a transaction on what they believe to be
the consensus chain only to find that when they try to spend those coins
no one accepts them because they were part of an invalid chain.
This has the effect of dropping non upgraded nodes to a form of spv
security without their consent.
This is in contrast to a hard fork where a full node operator could
explicitly set their node to accept higher version blocks that it can't
validate. They get the soft fork functionality back but they have at
least consented to it rather than have it forced on them. Doing forks
that way would also have the benefit of notifying the user they are
accepting unvalidated coins, whereas they wont know that in a soft fork.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151218/94b6565b/attachment.html>;
Chris [ARCHIVE] /
npub1jj…uchtw
2023-06-07 17:46:48
in reply to nevent1q…7rwx
Author Public Key
npub1jjaydndmznp5g07v9cf83dq6667rdgk4j52f662qv5k6klsky53sruchtwPublished at
2023-06-07 17:46:48Event JSON
{
"id": "223156c59aee4b0a404a73230763788341f0c5cfac70ef0f2b3b3f4c20a0910d",
"pubkey": "94ba46cdbb14c3443fcc2e1278b41ad6bc36a2d595149d6940652dab7e162523",
"created_at": 1686160008,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"98cf2e35838fa134ae6f1ae02856ea7c4d6d5aae2f9a5a6272379073f8e32519",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e4a5177eb830b04d3e20c1f1d2ebd445a8956576f0c4c57eba364091fd0aa577",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-18\n📝 Original message:On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev \n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e 2) The risk of an old full node wallet accepting a transaction whose\n\u003e coins passed through a script that depends on the softforked rules.\n\u003e\nThere's that, but there's also a case where an attacker creates a \nmajority chain that follows the old rules but not the new ones. \nNon-upgraded nodes would accept a transaction on what they believe to be \nthe consensus chain only to find that when they try to spend those coins \nno one accepts them because they were part of an invalid chain.\n\nThis has the effect of dropping non upgraded nodes to a form of spv \nsecurity without their consent.\n\nThis is in contrast to a hard fork where a full node operator could \nexplicitly set their node to accept higher version blocks that it can't \nvalidate. They get the soft fork functionality back but they have at \nleast consented to it rather than have it forced on them. Doing forks \nthat way would also have the benefit of notifying the user they are \naccepting unvalidated coins, whereas they wont know that in a soft fork.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151218/94b6565b/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "89797f5202a83757e5728121ad67ee3e716418c8955b9f2219a097c915b8ceedb591e4b574676c39620eed473ff6f61cedd9c29be285eb7ecad4e18ba33d1dae"
}