Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Draft: Minimum Viable TXIn Hash

From: Jorge Timón <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 00:05:28 +0200

>From your draft:

"It could also more easily, ignoring the difficulties of a hard-fork
period, be rolled out as a hard fork to avoid hokey-pokey.[1]
[...]

[1] Because someone asked... The Txid Hokey Pokey: you put the tail
end in, you put the tail end out, you put the tail end in and you hash
it all about you do the hokey pokey and you solve the block difficulty
bound, that's what it's all about!"

Reading this, the first thing that comes to mind is "What the h#$% is
a hokey pokey?"

>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokey_cokey : "It is well known in
English-speaking countries.".
That explains why I haven't heard about it in my whole life.
It may things clearer for people in these countries, but at least to
me, it just makes things more complicated: the analogy (that I still
don't understand after skimming the wikipedia article) doesn't allow
me to understand the actual explanation.

Can you please rewrite that with a more culturally-neutral analogy (or
just no analogy and just leave the explanation)?

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:12:19 PM Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> This looks like just a p2p protocol optimisation, which doesn't even need a
> softfork. You do need to document the suggested protocol changes more
> specifically, however.

I think his goal is to make it a consensus change so that confirmed
transactions can also use less space in blocks.
But, yes, I don't think it gives you anything to enforce it as a
consensus rule (all you care about is the savings when transmitting
the transactions and blocks).
In fact, I'm not sure how would that work, would the "compact tx"
produce a different hash than the non-compact one?