📅 Original date posted:2017-04-14 📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at ...

James Hilliard [ARCHIVE] /

npub10r9…gk2d

2023-06-07 18:00:05

in reply to nevent1q…h5t0

📅 Original date posted:2017-04-14
📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Friday, 14 April 2017 22:51:04 CEST James Hilliard wrote:
>> This doesn't remove the need for consensus rule enforcement of course.
>
> Thanks for confirming my point.
>
> This means that Gregory was incorrect saying that there is no risk to a non-
> upgraded node on a SegWit network mining a new invalid block. That risk is
> most definitely there for any miners "left behind" operating on a different
> set of consensus rules than the majority.
Greg is correct. There is effectively no risk to a non-upgrade
accidentally mining a new invalid block itself, the only risk is that
a non-upgraded miner could itself mine on top of an invalid block. You
would have to intentionally modify the code to mine an invalid block
which is not something that would be likely to happen accidentally.
>
> Kind of obvious, when you think about it.
>
> --
> Tom Zander
> Blog: https://zander.github.io
> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Author Public Key

npub10r9d6edmnrljk59wsf06zqp494l3qtjpa3w245hy6t5euqxlzw2qdkgk2d

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:00:05

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "19e17583f43118e7eb84f05ac582f81a289b2a1137fede466d2ced093cd59509", "pubkey": "78cadd65bb98ff2b50ae825fa100352d7f102e41ec5caad2e4d2e99e00df1394", "created_at": 1686160805, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "5d1e64c970da07b0178aa4b0869114a6c0b54023e99bc79f83d180601afc646b", "", "root" ], [ "e", "deaabea104cc16d772baeba0a0f8a56e9b1cb2d7459ccabe9def1e9e4e209e8d", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-14\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Friday, 14 April 2017 22:51:04 CEST James Hilliard wrote:\n\u003e\u003e This doesn't remove the need for consensus rule enforcement of course.\n\u003e\n\u003e Thanks for confirming my point.\n\u003e\n\u003e This means that Gregory was incorrect saying that there is no risk to a non-\n\u003e upgraded node on a SegWit network mining a new invalid block. That risk is\n\u003e most definitely there for any miners \"left behind\" operating on a different\n\u003e set of consensus rules than the majority.\nGreg is correct. There is effectively no risk to a non-upgrade\naccidentally mining a new invalid block itself, the only risk is that\na non-upgraded miner could itself mine on top of an invalid block. You\nwould have to intentionally modify the code to mine an invalid block\nwhich is not something that would be likely to happen accidentally.\n\u003e\n\u003e Kind of obvious, when you think about it.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Tom Zander\n\u003e Blog: https://zander.github.io\n\u003e Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev", "sig": "aa9067c19bdcff9011597da126004e0a52b5255a26ebbaba86ee1c7a5b3ea567b0e8f79fcc8f45071cd42ee17856779d52633dcfa7fc494826019f0b96361af0" }