<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28&#xA;📝 Original message:&gt;&#xA;&gt; we have NO hard fork mechanism in place that isn&#39;t highly prone to&#xA;&gt; systemic consensus failure.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Just use an opcode that isn&#39;t currently defined. Done. What about that&#xA;mechanism is prone to failure?&#xA;&#xA;Re: coma. No need for insults. Please read my article and address the&#xA;points raised there, which, by the way, do not include any mention of SPV&#xA;wallets. Although your belief that SPV wallets are &#34;inherently insecure&#34;&#xA;seems needlessly trollish - I certainly would disagree, but it&#39;s a&#xA;different debate.&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/4e00a31e/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>