From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XleVO-0000Qu-UT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:50:42 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.178; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com ([209.85.213.178]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XleVN-00027k-4i for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:50:42 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id a13so6575186igq.17 for ; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 05:50:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.137.91 with SMTP id l88mr9286262iod.61.1415109035828; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 05:50:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.98.40 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 05:50:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 05:50:35 -0800 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 (pieter.wuille[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 X-Headers-End: 1XleVN-00027k-4i Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades 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: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:50:43 -0000 On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Mike Hearn 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