Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades

[Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>> On another topic, I'm skeptical of the choice of nVersion==3 - we'll
>> likely end up doing more block.nVersion increases in the future, and
>> there's no reason to think they'll have anything to do with
>> transactions. No sense creating a rule that'll be so quickly broken.
>
> Moderately agreed.
>
> Earlier in BIP 62 lifetime, I had commented on ambiguity that arose
> from bumping tx version simply because we were bumping block version.
> The ambiguity was corrected, but IMO remains symptomatic of potential
> problems and confusion down the road.
>
> Though I ACK'd the change, my general preference remains to disconnect
> TX and block version.

I prefer to see consensus rules as one set of rules (especially
because they only really apply to blocks - the part for lone
transactions is just policy), and thus have a single numbering. Still,
I have no strong opinion about it and have now heard 3 'moderately
against' comments. I'm fine with using nVersion==2 for transactions.

-- 
Pieter