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
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
|
Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7694100B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:18:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (mail-pa0-f51.google.com
[209.85.220.51])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CD67125
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:18:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id jx14so19557958pad.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:18:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:date:to:cc:message-id;
bh=7AkBuXYzXTPkIz2lcWGesQgpR6KqEl+aUmoWvHlVS7c=;
b=ra+01dLUNnLcpV3tD3b0f71jcDEsuJHCRBfwtB2EgeFmJJwzYuA+8McBesRQ8Ypy8J
CwqmXZFyJln1upxzB3hlPUhT26xhARLmArD2corcbu3rziIJvlugSllETs7fa+GAY9OK
SyrJM9LJoa66yrhce5HrUz3eFOy8TrUvLICsPy3SfWhpWjExsrqQARyPnpkn71Tc6HZc
SWcTMAiVK+dWkroOcOOF+KaFMPYp51PIJzon2MHJx6fUpDYIZIkbd8FoQr0dSgu2frwt
hdILE/INjbp5nbym2NUHJtXbLoWMeymbUbmUSni9MSb4KCId3gECdy5CcoI6bk3h+NpG
kV+Q==
X-Received: by 10.66.251.3 with SMTP id zg3mr15824648pac.145.1450387125985;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:18:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.104] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
[76.167.237.202])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x22sm638390pfa.82.2015.12.17.13.18.44
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:18:45 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcbtOE-mxE=nYEAkn84q4eZHMQ7jCpLLrL4EoLguiZNHNg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
<CADm_WcbtOE-mxE=nYEAkn84q4eZHMQ7jCpLLrL4EoLguiZNHNg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----R90QQLIP9K81UAPP9CI0ZO9WKPVSV7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:18:57 -0800
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>,
Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Message-ID: <FEEEAAAD-8981-4E81-9D06-C5746A1ED123@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of
Scaling Bitcoin
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: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:18:46 -0000
------R90QQLIP9K81UAPP9CI0ZO9WKPVSV7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
Doesn't a good soft fork signaling mechanism along with an activation warning system for non-upgraded nodes (i.e. BIP9, or even block version ISM for that matter) essentially fix this? I don't quite get why this should be an issue.
On December 17, 2015 10:52:39 AM PST, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>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.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
------R90QQLIP9K81UAPP9CI0ZO9WKPVSV7
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html><head></head><body>Doesn't a good soft fork signaling mechanism along with an activation warning system for non-upgraded nodes (i.e. BIP9, or even block version ISM for that matter) essentially fix this? I don't quite get why this should be an issue.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On December 17, 2015 10:52:39 AM PST, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><br /><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jl2012@xbt.hk" target="_blank">jl2012@xbt.hk</a>></span> wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="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 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.<br /></blockquote><div><br /></div><div></div></div><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">Yes - the logic applies to all soft forks. Each soft fork degrades the security of non-upgraded nodes.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">The core design of bitcoin is that trustless nodes validate the work of miners, not trust them.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">Soft forks move in the opposite direction. Each new soft-forked feature leans very heavily on miner trust rather than P2P network validation.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div></div>
<p style="margin-top: 2.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid #000"></p><pre class="k9mail"><hr /><br />bitcoin-dev mailing list<br />bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<br /><a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>
------R90QQLIP9K81UAPP9CI0ZO9WKPVSV7--
|
