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

[Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@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