From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] multisig, op_eval and lock_time/sequence...
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:00:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EBB3E68.6060402@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200034A7-15F9-438F-A6B1-923A69348F55@ceptacle.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1796 bytes --]
The purpose of creating BIP 0010 now, is to encourage a standard that
developers /want/ to adopt, from the outset. Every developer who is
planning to touch multi-signature transactions, is going to have to
solve the problem of multi-sig tx exchanges, eventually. By offering an
excellent solution before they've started asking the question, there's a
good chance people will use it. Hear me out...
Protocols get fragmented when there's multiple competing ways to do
something, each having some advantages the others don't have. This
leads to developers with differing priorities picking different ones, or
creating their own. However, I believe that the problem BIP 0010 seeks
to solve is a fairly straightforward problem. There's not a lot of
variety in the solutions that could compete against it. People just
need a way to pass this data around, and they want it to be as
convenient to use, and as easy to implement as possible. In that sense,
I think BIP 0010 (or some future variant) is fairly optimal as a
building block for higher-level protocols.
If anyone has ideas for why someone would want to create a competing
idea to BIP 0010 (besides not being aware of it when they start), I'd
like to discuss it. I'm fairly confident that any such ideas could just
be added to BIP 0010 and thus reset the question of why anyone would
need a competing idea.
On 11/09/2011 03:03 PM, Michael Grønager wrote:
> My main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that they might never be standard (I think a great number of clients will emerge - and this would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the p2p network it will be a seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, even across different clients. But I share your concern on the
>
> /M
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2375 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-10 3:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-09 10:22 Michael Grønager
2011-11-09 14:43 ` Alan Reiner
2011-11-09 15:22 ` Alan Reiner
2011-11-09 19:13 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-11-09 20:02 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-11-09 20:31 ` Michael Grønager
2011-11-09 21:18 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-11-09 21:32 ` Joel Joonatan Kaartinen
2011-11-09 22:13 ` theymos
2011-11-09 20:03 ` Michael Grønager
2011-11-10 3:00 ` Alan Reiner [this message]
2011-11-10 9:55 ` Michael Grønager
2011-11-10 12:56 ` Alan Reiner
2011-11-12 16:58 ` Mike Hearn
2011-11-12 17:10 ` Alan Reiner
2011-11-12 17:16 ` Mike Hearn
2011-11-12 17:25 ` Alan Reiner
2011-11-12 17:38 ` Mike Hearn
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=4EBB3E68.6060402@gmail.com \
--to=etotheipi@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/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