public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 05:50:35 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBj=SxJiQiChLThNK=PUh-a=V+S=RV2pSUSdHc53GCA1+w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1wi=Wc+BgMf+9GdLLbNMfSex8XkdCLWuAeS3sj9fDo1Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> This is another problem that only exists because of the desire to soft fork.
> If "script 2.0" is a hard fork upgrade, you no longer need weird hacks like
> scripts-which-are-not-scripts.

I agree.
I also agree that the desire for softforks sometimes lead to ugly hacks.
I also that they are not "nice" philosophically because they reduce
the security model of former full nodes to SPV wrt. the new rules
without their knowledge.
I also agree that hardforks should be possible when they're useful.

But in practice, hardforks have a much larger risk which just isn't
justified for everything. Especially when it's about introducing a new
transaction type that won't be used before the softfork takes place
anyway.

And to keep the option for doing future softforks open, I believe we
need to be aware of the effects of changes like this.

-- 
Pieter



  reply	other threads:[~2014-11-04 13:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-04 13:29 [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades Pieter Wuille
2014-11-04 13:38 ` Mike Hearn
2014-11-04 13:50   ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2014-11-04 14:01 ` Gavin Andresen
2014-11-04 19:13 ` Peter Todd
2014-11-04 19:56   ` Jeff Garzik
2014-11-04 20:00     ` Pieter Wuille
2014-11-04 20:07       ` Peter Todd
2014-11-05  7:53         ` Pieter Wuille

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAPg+sBj=SxJiQiChLThNK=PUh-a=V+S=RV2pSUSdHc53GCA1+w@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=pieter.wuille@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=mike@plan99.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox