User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKS74iF2FNuHtds=3R9++sx9ZP-0tcq_j5XqZw9-6uHkVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTFEme9gYHTAVVLtFc4JCK4hoBLXEhMCRdEXK9cWso_pUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKQ8xos6S_BBMqZy6wieFCG=eNxahKXrx3mVKuZcxzjruw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4965E9A0-0FF1-4A3F-9165-A21AF976E229@gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKSm2Np92+NA77nNMB5LqSyO0=W8dziiMtGO=Jf+7KidHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<C0E61EA6-76BE-45E0-8983-A3BC26CC64CF@gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKS74iF2FNuHtds=3R9++sx9ZP-0tcq_j5XqZw9-6uHkVQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----Z1COHDYPKYY1YB42SVUSHWK76BQ7YW"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 23:17:33 -0700
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Message-ID: <EE96B281-464B-4B17-BAF6-25F3E30AB238@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
Precedence: list

------Z1COHDYPKYY1YB42SVUSHWK76BQ7YW
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8

Mike,

Insults were not really my intention. Let's set aside our differences regarding SPV security and assume you understand the different implications for soft forks and hard forks.

Other than the fact that doing this as a soft fork requires an extra OP_DROP, how would doing this as a hard fork make any difference to SPV clients? If, as others have suggested, all clients warn the user on unrecognized nVersion and make unknown noops nonstandard, would this satisfy your concerns? The logic seems pretty straightforward.

- Eric

On September 28, 2015 5:54:33 AM PDT, Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com> wrote:
>>
>> we have NO hard fork mechanism in place that isn't highly prone to
>> systemic consensus failure.
>>
>
>Just use an opcode that isn't currently defined. Done. What about that
>mechanism is prone to failure?
>
>Re: coma. No need for insults. Please read my article and address the
>points raised there, which, by the way, do not include any mention of
>SPV
>wallets. Although your belief that SPV wallets are "inherently
>insecure"
>seems needlessly trollish - I certainly would disagree, but it's a
>different debate.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
------Z1COHDYPKYY1YB42SVUSHWK76BQ7YW
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html><head></head><body>Mike,<br>
<br>
Insults were not really my intention. Let&#39;s set aside our differences regarding SPV security and assume you understand the different implications for soft forks and hard forks.<br>
<br>
Other than the fact that doing this as a soft fork requires an extra OP_DROP, how would doing this as a hard fork make any difference to SPV clients? If, as others have suggested, all clients warn the user on unrecognized nVersion and make unknown noops nonstandard, would this satisfy your concerns? The logic seems pretty straightforward.<br>
<br>
- Eric<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On September 28, 2015 5:54:33 AM PDT, Mike Hearn &lt;hearn@vinumeris.com&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"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>we have NO hard fork mechanism in place that isn&#39;t highly prone to systemic consensus failure.<br /></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>Just use an opcode that isn&#39;t currently defined. Done. What about that mechanism is prone to failure?</div><div> </div><div>Re: coma. No need for insults. Please read my article and address the points raised there, which, by the way, do not include any mention of SPV wallets. Although your belief that SPV wallets are &quot;inherently insecure&quot; seems needlessly trollish - I certainly would disagree, but it&#39;s a different debate.</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html>
------Z1COHDYPKYY1YB42SVUSHWK76BQ7YW--