MIME-Version: 1.0
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
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling
	Bitcoin
Precedence: list

--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">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:jl2012@xbt.hk" target=3D"_blank">jl2012@xbt.hk</a>&gt;</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&#39;t think so. Since one invalid CLTV tx =
will make the whole block invalid. Having more nodes to fully validate non-=
CLTV txs won&#39;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--