On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 04:11:58PM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 12:45:14PM -0500, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Back <a...@cypherspace.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > It would probably be a good idea to have a security considerations > > > section > > > > > > Containing what? I'm not aware of any security considerations that are any > > different from any other consensus rules change. > > I covered the security considerations unique to hard-forks on my blog: > > https://petertodd.org/2016/soft-forks-are-safer-than-hard-forks
Oh, and to be 100% clear, I should say those are only *some of* the unique security considerations - for starters the article is mainly talking about uncontroversial hard-forks, and doesn't even delve into economic attacks among other omissions. It's just an introductory article. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000008320874843f282f554aa2436290642fcfa81e5a01d78698
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
