Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:43:18 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Message-ID: <20150928144318.GA28939@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150928132127.GA4829@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+w+GKTCZDNVJ-XEmsCAWGXUV3xOzVYmqMQYm0x+ihyYWQN0Gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150928142953.GC21815@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+w+GKTUz2eVJOpixSebWiQ59ovoELNhsZWSsbLHXWqk2eCn0A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6TrnltStXW4iwmi0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKTUz2eVJOpixSebWiQ59ovoELNhsZWSsbLHXWqk2eCn0A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
Precedence: list


--6TrnltStXW4iwmi0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 04:33:23PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> >
> > SPV wallets can't detect hard-forks
>=20
>=20
> They don't have to - they pick the highest work chain. Any miner who hasn=
't
> upgraded makes blocks on the shorter chain that are then ignored (or
> rather, stored for future reorgs). After the fork point, there won't be a=
ny
> blocks in the main chain that violate the rules and end up being doomed to
> being orphaned, which is the underlying problem.
>=20
> And I think you know this already. There is no "flaw" in bitcoinj in this
> respect. It works exactly as it was designed to work.

Ok, so again, if that's your security criteria, what's the issue with
soft-forks? With soft-forks, the result of a SPV wallet following the
highest work chain is the same: eventually invalid blocks are reorged
out.

However, because soft-forks make it less likely that a long invalid
chain will be generated, an attacker sybil attacking your SPV wallet has
a much harder time tricking it into accepting a transaction. (they might
get one or two confirmations, rather than dozens)

What's the scenario where soft-forks are worse than hard-forks from a
SPV wallet's perspective?

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000368227ec1de9c27c14d23cb7be9e9f38c0082db79a87c49

--6TrnltStXW4iwmi0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=19IV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6TrnltStXW4iwmi0--