Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 106E41118 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:53:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94DA389 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:53:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:36641 helo=server47.web-hosting.com) by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgbfX-0002XI-HW; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:52:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:52:51 -0400 From: jl2012@xbt.hk To: Mike Hearn In-Reply-To: References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> <20150928132127.GA4829@savin.petertodd.org> <20150928142953.GC21815@savin.petertodd.org> <20150928144318.GA28939@savin.petertodd.org> <20150928150543.GB28939@savin.petertodd.org> Message-ID: <8461c6195ca65ce7355f693fa24bb177@xbt.hk> X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: jl2012@xbt.hk X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY! 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: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:53:09 -0000 Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-09-28 11:38 寫到: > My point about IsStandard is that miners can and do bypass it, > without expecting that to carry financial consequences or lower the > security of other users. By making it so a block which includes > non-standard transactions can end up being seen as invalid, you are > increasing the risk of accidents that carry financial consequences. Bypassing IsStandard should be considered as an "expert mode". The message should be "don't bypass it unless you understand what you are doing". By the way, miners are PAID to protect the network. It is their greatest responsibility to follow the development and keep their software up to date. > How do ordinary Bitcoin users benefit from this rollout strategy? Put > simply, what is the point of this whole complex soft fork endeavour? Let me try to answer this question. Softfork is beneficial to non-mining full nodes as they will follow the majority chain. In the case of a hardfork (e.g. BIP101), non-upgrading full nodes will insist to follow the minority chain. (unless you believe that all non-miner should use an SPV client) Put it in a different angle. In a softfork, the new fork is a persistent 95% attack against the old fork, which will force all in-cooperating miners to join (or leave). In a hardfork, however, there is no mechanism to stop the old fork and we may have 2 chains co-exist for a long time. Although it is not mentioned in the whitepaper, the ability to softfork is a feature of Bitcoin. Otherwise, we won't have these OP_NOPs and the original OP_RETURN.