Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility requirements for hard or soft forks

[Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1376 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Are there actually any OP_CAT scripts currently in the utxo set?
>

A locked transaction could pay to an OP_CAT script with the private key
being lost.

Even if it is only in theory, it is still worth trying to prevent rule
changes which permanently prevent outputs being spendable.


> It's a lot easier to justify the position: "nobody has the right to
> change the meaning of someone else's outputs", than it is to justify,
> "some small group of people gets to decide what's standard and what
> isn't, and if you choose to use the network in a valid but nonstandard
> way, that group of people might choose to deny you access to your money
> in the future"
>

If at least one year's notice was given, then people aren't going to lose
their money, since they have notice.

Locked transactions could have a difference expectation than non-locked
ones.


> In other words, how close to the shores of "administrators of a virtual
> currency" do Bitcoin developers want to sail?
>

Miners can collectively vote to disable specific UTXOs and change the
acceptance rules.


>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2556 bytes --]