Mike,
Insults were not really my intention. Let's set aside our differences regarding
SPV security and assume you understand the different implications for soft
forks and hard forks.
Other than the fact that doing this as a soft fork requires an extra OP_DROP,
how would doing this as a hard fork make any difference to SPV clients? If, as
others have suggested, all clients warn the user on unrecognized nVersion and
make unknown noops nonstandard, would this satisfy your concerns? The logic
seems pretty straightforward.
- Eric
On September 28, 2015 5:54:33 AM PDT, Mike Hearn <he...@vinumeris.com> wrote:
>>
>> we have NO hard fork mechanism in place that isn't highly prone to
>> systemic consensus failure.
>>
>
>Just use an opcode that isn't currently defined. Done. What about that
>mechanism is prone to failure?
>
>Re: coma. No need for insults. Please read my article and address the
>points raised there, which, by the way, do not include any mention of
>SPV
>wallets. Although your belief that SPV wallets are "inherently
>insecure"
>seems needlessly trollish - I certainly would disagree, but it's a
>different debate.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
