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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2DF1F1E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:44:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [106.187.51.212])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 313FF15E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:44:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.84 #2 (Debian))
id 1aSboa-0002HB-FD; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:44:38 +1000
Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:44:32 +1000
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:44:32 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160208024432.GA21065@sapphire.erisian.com.au>
References: <f225318eddd0aadc71861f988f2f4674@xbt.hk>
<CAAS2fgT_f858GFVY9RAN1skd8_9Q_T1ZFoUXCQiC3o3B+z4oXw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1AdWPAtGHkhMAGtnWtthE+oienUBm0iXEfUG05S6ko-Q@mail.gmail.com>
<232901d161dd$a35f8d30$ea1ea790$@xbt.hk>
<D7B0DA3F-8D4C-48B5-88AB-0D6F4BFCD77D@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D7B0DA3F-8D4C-48B5-88AB-0D6F4BFCD77D@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork bit BIP
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: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 02:44:42 -0000
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:20:27PM -0500, Gavin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 2016, at 2:27 PM, <jl2012@xbt.hk> <jl2012@xbt.hk> wrote:
> > Normal version number only suggests softforks, which is usually not a concern for SPV clients.
> Soft forks affect the security of low-confirmation (zero or one) transactions sent to SPV wallets even more than hard forks,
This isn't true for soft-forks that only forbid transactions that would
already be rejected for forwarding and mining due to being non-standard.
> and because many users and businesses choose convenience over airtight security I would argue transaction validation rule changes are a VERY big concern for lightweight clients.
I agree on that point; but ensuring soft-forks only affect non-standard
transactions already addresses that concern in every way I've been able
to discover.
Cheers,
aj
|
