Gavin [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-02-07 📝 Original message:> On Feb 7, 2016, at 2:27 ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-02-07
📝 Original message:> On Feb 7, 2016, at 2:27 PM, <jl2012 at xbt.hk> <jl2012 at 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, 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.
📝 Original message:> On Feb 7, 2016, at 2:27 PM, <jl2012 at xbt.hk> <jl2012 at 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, 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.