Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:44:32 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160208024432.GA21065@sapphire.erisian.com.au>
References: <f225318eddd0aadc71861f988f2f4674@xbt.hk>
	<CAAS2fgT_f858GFVY9RAN1skd8_9Q_T1ZFoUXCQiC3o3B+z4oXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T1AdWPAtGHkhMAGtnWtthE+oienUBm0iXEfUG05S6ko-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<232901d161dd$a35f8d30$ea1ea790$@xbt.hk>
	<D7B0DA3F-8D4C-48B5-88AB-0D6F4BFCD77D@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D7B0DA3F-8D4C-48B5-88AB-0D6F4BFCD77D@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork bit BIP
Precedence: list

On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:20:27PM -0500, Gavin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 2016, at 2:27 PM, <jl2012@xbt.hk> <jl2012@xbt.hk> wrote:
> > Normal version number only suggests softforks, which is usually not a concern for SPV clients.
> Soft forks affect the security of low-confirmation (zero or one) transactions sent to SPV wallets even more than hard forks,

This isn't true for soft-forks that only forbid transactions that would
already be rejected for forwarding and mining due to being non-standard.

> and because many users and businesses choose convenience over airtight security I would argue transaction validation rule changes are a VERY big concern for lightweight clients.

I agree on that point; but ensuring soft-forks only affect non-standard
transactions already addresses that concern in every way I've been able
to discover.

Cheers,
aj