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.
You may argue that a softfork would make the network as a whole less
secure, as old nodes have to trust new nodes. However, the security of
all content in the same block must be the same, by definition.
Anyway, I support SW softfork at the beginning, and eventually (~2
years) moving to a hardfork with higher block size limit and better
commitment structure.
Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-12-17 13:27 寫到:
Illustration: If SW is deployed via soft fork, the count of nodes
that validate witness data is significantly lower than the count of
nodes that validate non-witness data. Soft forks are not trustless
operation, they depend on miner trust, slowly eroding the trustless
validation of older nodes over time.
Higher security in one data area versus another produces another
economic value distinction between the two goods in the basket, and
creates a "pay more for higher security in core block, pay less for
lower security in witness" dynamic.
This economic distinction is not present if SW is deployed via hard
fork.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
