On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:00:43PM -0800, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Peter Todd 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