Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of softforks

Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev writes: > On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > >> 1) The risk of an old full node wallet accepting a transaction that is >> invalid to the new rules.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of softforks

Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-12-19 23:14 寫到: Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev writes: On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: 1) The risk of an old full node wallet accepting a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of softforks

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Anyway, we should write this up as a BIP - there's been a tremendous > amount of misinformation, even flat out lies, floating around on this > subject. > Er, this sounds like something

Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of softforks

To me it's getting clearer and clearer that th frintier between softforks and hardforks it's softer than we thought. Aoftforks should start having a minimum median time deplayment day (be it height or median time, I don't care, just not header.nTime). TYDGFHdfthfg64565$%^$ On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at

Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of softforks

out rule changes. - Eric -- Original Message -- From: "Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> To: "Pieter Wuille" <pieter.wui...@gmail.com> Cc: "Bitcoin Dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Se

Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of softforks

On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 1) The risk of an old full node wallet accepting a transaction that is > invalid to the new rules. > > The receiver wallet chooses what address/script to accept coins on. > They'll