On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <jl2...@xbt.hk> wrote: > 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. >
Yes - the logic applies to all soft forks. Each soft fork degrades the security of non-upgraded nodes. The core design of bitcoin is that trustless nodes validate the work of miners, not trust them. Soft forks move in the opposite direction. Each new soft-forked feature leans very heavily on miner trust rather than P2P network validation.
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
