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
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
|
Return-Path: <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9055AE44
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:52:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com
[209.85.223.180])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 148A8108
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:52:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 186so66068155iow.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:52:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=mKASeDwMicIwglkcr99JHZnnr0dw3De7mmT7xZ46Efo=;
b=xC96bnn1nZqKVBSotdIq709noHVgx1vNxfdgZBn1jQh594TRZ/XP/gao417c21Aqg1
+Mmx169H+LlO3nJ692o0gL/WwbSSv2hofp8UMaYcRvx9E8OXpLo7IfqD7W7WS8g7gJ5y
HM3GLef4CpPFnDuolQ5h3h+E01RDD4VPwgb7Jggn4cqqwva9KZyAgZgQDhE3UGCCX1It
Z2EJ0Mo/+ulYCtJO3CHBgH350frIdBBa3G1QYQ6PumELS6IlZ8YsXuYsq2aUtOGYh2XF
McLrhkpnMFDr58+wApeQyzF61OX/4C7qlHBJobTWdanbo86huE5aL5aOBO+NIuJLn8Hb
mnoQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.185.133 with SMTP id j127mr51153576iof.91.1450378359538;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:52:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.79.8.198 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:52:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2402050984d0076bf0a4556e10962722@xbt.hk>
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>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:52:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CADm_WcbtOE-mxE=nYEAkn84q4eZHMQ7jCpLLrL4EoLguiZNHNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c070a1ce90b8305271c86e1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling
Bitcoin
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:52:40 -0000
--94eb2c070a1ce90b8305271c86e1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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.
--94eb2c070a1ce90b8305271c86e1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:jl2012@xbt.hk" target=3D"_blank">jl2012@xbt.hk</a>></span> wr=
ote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"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 ar=
e 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 s=
oftfork.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div></div></div><br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra">Yes - the logic applies to all soft forks.=C2=A0 Each so=
ft fork degrades the security of non-upgraded nodes.</div><div class=3D"gma=
il_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">The core design of bitcoin i=
s that trustless nodes validate the work of miners, not trust them.</div><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Soft forks mo=
ve in the opposite direction.=C2=A0 Each new soft-forked feature leans very=
heavily on miner trust rather than P2P network validation.</div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div>
--94eb2c070a1ce90b8305271c86e1--
|
