From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:07:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141104200744.GA16945@savin.petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBh=YDQhwNRWjhOQtWVPMZ0+D0MnprZK+vMjsuC-=RxAQA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2132 bytes --]
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:00:43PM -0800, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> 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.
Keep in mind that we may even have a circumstance where we need to
introduce *two* different new tx version numbers in a single soft-fork,
say because we find an exploit that has two different fixes, each of
which breaks something.
I don't think we have any certainty how new features will be added in
the future - just look at how we only recently realised new opcodes
won't be associated with tx version number bumps - so I'm loath to setup
expectations.
Besides, transactions can certainly be verified for correctness in a
stand-alone fashion outside a block; CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY was
specifically designed so that verifying scripts containing it could be
done in a self-contained manner only referencing the transaction the
script was within.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000036655c955dd94ba7f9856814f3cb87f003e311566921807
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-04 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-04 13:29 Pieter Wuille
2014-11-04 13:38 ` Mike Hearn
2014-11-04 13:50 ` Pieter Wuille
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 [this message]
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=20141104200744.GA16945@savin.petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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