Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-12-17 📝 Original message:On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-12-17
📝 Original message:On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <jl2012 at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151217/b7b9e80f/attachment.html>;