From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RsWm9-0007w1-Lr for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:46:49 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RsWm8-0004cF-Kg for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:46:49 +0000 Received: by werc1 with SMTP id c1so1143813wer.34 for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:46:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.139.161 with SMTP id c33mr2445971wej.53.1328089602471; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:46:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from dvr.localnet (mail.360visiontechnology.com. [92.42.121.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dw7sm28964391wib.4.2012.02.01.01.46.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:46:40 -0800 (PST) From: Andy Parkins To: Gregory Maxwell Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:46:31 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.3; i686; ; ) References: <201201311651.02726.andyparkins@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1372095.UjJ9JDOvRM"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201202010946.37807.andyparkins@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (andyparkins[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RsWm8-0004cF-Kg Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP16/17 replacement X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:46:49 -0000 --nextPart1372095.UjJ9JDOvRM Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2012 January 31 Tuesday, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > I think you've been deceived by people who have some interest in > promoting this as some sort of big controversy, or perhaps just > confused by the general level of noise. Well that's good that there is no real problem. > It does not, in fact=E2=80=94 Yes, it requires a client update to make us= e of > the new functionality, but old nodes will happily continue to validate > things. It's hard to express how critical this is distinctly. > Bitcoin is, predominantly, a zero-trust system. Nodes don't trust that > things were done right, the validate them for themselves. >=20 > A breaking change of the kind you suggest is not something that would > be considered lightly, and this is certainly not justified for this. To be brutally honest; I don't see how the BIP16/17 changes are any less=20 "breaking" than what I proposed (I'm not trying to push mine; forget it, th= e=20 last thing bitcoin needs is another proposal if there is no real argument).= =20 I will agree the changes are smaller for BIP16, since the transactions are= =20 left as they are. If BIP16/BIP17 were being honest they would too increase the version number= =20 of the transaction structure. The new transaction type is not supported by= =20 the old client... that's a break. My argument would be that once you're=20 going to break the old clients anyway, go the whole hog and fix some other= =20 stuff as well. > If we ever were to scrap the system, I think we very much would do > something like what you describe here... and as much has been > documented: >=20 > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist > (see "Elimination of output scripts") I'm glad I wasn't talking rubbish then. =20 > But, to be clear, this stuff is pretty much fantasy. I'm doubtful that > it will ever happen, doubtful that we can get the kind of development Me too. Which is a shame; as it means we're locked into quite a fair numbe= r=20 of earlier decisions that will now never be changed. > resources required to pull off a true breaking change in a way that > people would actually trust upgrading to=E2=80=94 at least not before a t= ime > that the system is simply too big to make that kind of change. Again: I don't see how BIP16/17 aren't "breaking" as well; but perhaps I'm= =20 just not familiar enough with the conventions. As far as I understand; no= =20 pre-BIP16 miner is going to allow BIP16 into the blockchain because it's no= t=20 going to pass the IsStandard() test. I'd repeat: the reasonable thing to do is to increase the version number of= =20 the transaction structure to indicate that they are being processed=20 differently from old transactions. Andy =2D-=20 Dr Andy Parkins andyparkins@gmail.com --nextPart1372095.UjJ9JDOvRM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk8pCfgACgkQwQJ9gE9xL22nIQCfUxsxUhzm6f+K9sPpZUoQioba Cw8An2bpp2CzDnIFnC6tjjdEsi3KL7Dk =743B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1372095.UjJ9JDOvRM--