User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcbtOE-mxE=nYEAkn84q4eZHMQ7jCpLLrL4EoLguiZNHNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcYWh5EnBCzQQVc04sf-0seh2zrmc+5dH8Z-Bo78jhPnfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBhUso0ddfYQMgwF7yX9_VoqP9CZN5h45t3eQi4v3m6f6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcYZq3nzfYMXfzkZsTCsgmzy4L_nYpa5Kax8uF_ajuUTiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBiVVcNNHuV9e1SaPoDSMEwjZHL7tQiszxbE2SQYp1Ongw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcZbbv9zy_5kN264GhYC_kBBr+Leoi0y1PA4pm23CaW3QQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbiLCU3yuSfWEJbLDWhfc-9kYFJFCo+fRYyENAsvParng@mail.gmail.com>
	<2402050984d0076bf0a4556e10962722@xbt.hk>
	<CADm_WcbtOE-mxE=nYEAkn84q4eZHMQ7jCpLLrL4EoLguiZNHNg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----R90QQLIP9K81UAPP9CI0ZO9WKPVSV7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:18:57 -0800
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>,
	Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Message-ID: <FEEEAAAD-8981-4E81-9D06-C5746A1ED123@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of
	Scaling	Bitcoin
Precedence: list

------R90QQLIP9K81UAPP9CI0ZO9WKPVSV7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8

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@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <jl2012@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

------R90QQLIP9K81UAPP9CI0ZO9WKPVSV7
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html><head></head><body>Doesn&#39;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&#39;t quite get why this should be an issue.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On December 17, 2015 10:52:39 AM PST, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev &lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><br /><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:jl2012@xbt.hk" target="_blank">jl2012@xbt.hk</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This is not correct.<br />
<br />
As only about 1/3 of nodes support BIP65 now, would you consider CLTV tx are less secure than others? I don&#39;t think so. Since one invalid CLTV tx will make the whole block invalid. Having more nodes to fully validate non-CLTV txs won&#39;t make them any safer. The same logic also applies to SW softfork.<br /></blockquote><div><br /></div><div></div></div><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">Yes - the logic applies to all soft forks.  Each soft fork degrades the security of non-upgraded nodes.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">The core design of bitcoin is that trustless nodes validate the work of miners, not trust them.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">Soft forks move in the opposite direction.  Each new soft-forked feature leans very heavily on miner trust rather than P2P network validation.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div></div>
<p style="margin-top: 2.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid #000"></p><pre class="k9mail"><hr /><br />bitcoin-dev mailing list<br />bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<br /><a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>
------R90QQLIP9K81UAPP9CI0ZO9WKPVSV7--