On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:00:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: > *But* a soft fork that only forbids transactions that would previously > not have been mined anyway should be the best of both worlds, [...]
> * more restrictive than consensus, but less restrictive than policy > (safe soft fork) > Hmm, in particular, following this line of thinking it's not clear to > me that BIP68 is actually less restrictive than current policy? As was discussed on the weekly meeting [0], turns out it *is* less restrictive than current policy. IsStandardTx currently returns a failure if the tx version is greater than 1, and per BIP68, nSequence will only be inforced with tx version of 2 or greater. So afaics, BIP 65 (OP_CLTV), BIP 68 (nSequence) and BIP 112 (OP_CSV) are all "safe soft forks", and if activated won't cause SPV nodes to see a significant uptick in reorgs, double-spends etc. (They'll still be vulnerable to people deliberately spending hashpower to mine invalid blocks, but that's a problem at any point, independent of whether a soft-fork is underway) [0] http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-dev/2015/bitcoin-dev.2015-10-08-18.59.log.html#l-312 Cheers, aj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
