{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08\n📝 Original message:On Tuesday, December 08, 2015 11:40:42 PM Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev \nwrote:\n\u003e Agree. This data does not belong in the coinbase. That space is for miners\n\u003e to use, not devs.\n\nThis has never been guaranteed, nor are softforks a \"dev action\" in the first \nplace.\n\n\u003e I also think that a hard fork is better for SegWit, as it reduces the size\n\u003e of fraud proofs considerably, makes the whole design more elegant and less\n\u003e kludgey, and is safer for clients who do not upgrade in a timely fashion.\n\nHow about we pursue the SegWit softfork, and at the same time* work on a \nhardfork which will simplify the proofs and reduce the kludgeyness of merge-\nmining in general? Then, if the hardfork is ready before the softfork, they \ncan both go together, but if not, we aren't stuck delaying the improvements of \nSegWit until the hardfork is completed.\n\n* I have been in fact working on such a proposal for a while now, since before \nSegWit.\n\n\u003e I don't like the idea that SegWit would invalidate the security\n\u003e assumptions of non-upgraded clients (including SPV wallets). I think that\n\u003e for these clients, no data is better than invalid data. Better to force\n\u003e them to upgrade by cutting them off the network than to let them think\n\u003e they're validating transactions when they're not.\n\nThere isn't an option for \"no data\", as non-upgraded nodes in a hardfork are \nleft completely vulnerable to attacking miners, even much lower hashrate than \nthe 51% attack risk. So the alternatives are:\n- hardfork: complete loss of all security for the old nodes\n- softfork: degraded security for old nodes\n\nLuke"}