MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2003939.Nx7GrYTPuJ@cherry>
References: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2983024.JOGDlViq2a@cherry>
	<CADvTj4qjCvN_kPV8YBz0f94YD2Ur4PWqryFPeKQ42fx_Wj2hTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2003939.Nx7GrYTPuJ@cherry>
From: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:10:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CADvTj4rpGTJ59bg0JF2qOo8+f+jku=5zFZWX=uJ-eMhHjqhMcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
Precedence: list

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
Greg is correct. There is effectively no risk to a non-upgrade
accidentally mining a new invalid block itself, the only risk is that
a non-upgraded miner could itself mine on top of an invalid block. You
would have to intentionally modify the code to mine an invalid block
which is not something that would be likely to happen accidentally.
>
> Kind of obvious, when you think about it.
>
> --
> Tom Zander
> Blog: https://zander.github.io
> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev