Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 113C2B4C for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 05:45:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail149077.authsmtp.com (outmail149077.authsmtp.com [62.13.149.77]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74AC7F4 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 05:45:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t645iwlV047708; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 06:44:58 +0100 (BST) Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com [75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t645irAQ027013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 4 Jul 2015 06:44:56 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2015 01:44:53 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Raystonn Message-ID: <20150704054453.GA348@savin.petertodd.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: cd30db1d-220f-11e5-b397-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgYUEkAYAgsB AmMbW1JeVFl7XGU7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr VklWR1pVCwQmRRoF A0dcI3hydQJGeX0+ bU5qWj4ICEd6IRR8 FlNWF21QeGZhPWUC AkNRcB5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhEy HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd bAYXLhoVTw4KGCA1 QxEOVT8rGkYGXG0/ MhFuNllUNmcpbBt6 L1omXVsEMhgUEWUA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fork of invalid blocks due to BIP66 violations X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 05:45:02 -0000 --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 10:43:14PM -0700, Raystonn wrote: >

The SPV clients should be checking node versions. This is= for wallet authors to implement. End-users should just stay current with = their chosen wallet software.
Nodes can and do lie about what version they are all the time. Fact is, SPV means you're trusting other people to check the rules for you. In this particular case bitcoinj could have - and should have - checked the BIP66 soft-fork rules, but in general there's no easy solution to this problem. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000a43884e675843f56df90feffeabf56c4e7350f96b623f00 --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVl3LRXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwYTQzODg0ZTY3NTg0M2Y1NmRmOTBmZWZmZWFiZjU2YzRl NzM1MGY5NmI2MjNmMDAvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkftfLAf9Hmau0Qg22SkIv9DoLxMffLwk Uh2Ugn4h0R7W8rnyZLATqznTzmj9vtuiGXINFmq3DrKspLfmj5iJAW9OV5di4I3E eC615xSJdF/vVxfJVrnOlb3K7tlfgVSSQJItlX+Saq0mg5CkfwmN2/soY3wTxdiE d6Q8Q778mRvkjHkbvlJNv0tpFY2o3QICRHB1KdBXdAxXbpfqy3N0WDMCVYa0S4yI /g59LdLtGbhLmPNPjHff8KdhN82+vJn9rINcr8c4re/OjjARkdHFP55j6JBkiAmv inUNSQVmKpe8jXiptov4fB7pEmmYg2nA8scmL2AG7o99MNUhymYtL8eFwMV2Jg== =qcna -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx--