<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jl2012@xbt.hk" target="_blank">jl2012@xbt.hk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This is not correct.<br>
<br>
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.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div></div></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Yes - the logic applies to all soft forks. Each soft fork degrades the security of non-upgraded nodes.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">The core design of bitcoin is that trustless nodes validate the work of miners, not trust them.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Soft forks move in the opposite direction. Each new soft-forked feature leans very heavily on miner trust rather than P2P network validation.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div>