On 2012 January 31 Tuesday, Luke-Jr wrote:

> I'm not aware of any remaining *tangible* objections to BIP 17 at this
> point (Gavin seems concerned over a theoretical
> risk-that-nobody-has-thought-of), but if there's a better solution, I'm
> perfectly fine Withdrawing BIP 17 to support it.

I imagine the BIP16 supporters would say the same?  Isn't that the essence of 
the current impasse?

> Both BIP 16 and 17 are backward compatible enough that people can continue
> to use the old clients with each other. An upgrade is only required to
> send to (or create/receive on) the new 3...-form addresses. That being
> said, it's quite possible to rewrite the practical implications of both
> BIP 16 and 17 in the format you seem to be suggesting. Doing so would even
> get rid of one of the major objections to BIP 16 (its inconsistency).

My suggestion is backward compatible.  You'd only have to make version2 
transactions for version2 addresses; and the join between version1 and 
version2 is not a problem since the version1 source can be detected, and the 
handling of the version2 transaction altered as appropriate (it's only a 
matter of switching from the hash check to running the two scripts as 
normal).



Andy
-- 
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins@gmail.com