On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <jl2012@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