blob: 3735426ed3183f803030b509088eb4a4319a01fa (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D798BC52
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F0D61D9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42EFE606EE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 22:58:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 22:58:15 +0200
Message-ID: <2003939.Nx7GrYTPuJ@cherry>
In-Reply-To: <CADvTj4qjCvN_kPV8YBz0f94YD2Ur4PWqryFPeKQ42fx_Wj2hTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com>
<2983024.JOGDlViq2a@cherry>
<CADvTj4qjCvN_kPV8YBz0f94YD2Ur4PWqryFPeKQ42fx_Wj2hTQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:02:20 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:58:17 -0000
On Friday, 14 April 2017 22:51:04 CEST James Hilliard wrote:
> This doesn't remove the need for consensus rule enforcement of course.
Thanks for confirming my point.
This means that Gregory was incorrect saying that there is no risk to a non-
upgraded node on a SegWit network mining a new invalid block. That risk is
most definitely there for any miners "left behind" operating on a different
set of consensus rules than the majority.
Kind of obvious, when you think about it.
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
