From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:00:43 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBh=YDQhwNRWjhOQtWVPMZ0+D0MnprZK+vMjsuC-=RxAQA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0NiWJtb0aSRddZmBtQRkfMyQ957jnZi=qGfL6eOb76gFg@mail.gmail.com>
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.
--
Pieter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-04 20:00 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 [this message]
2014-11-04 20:07 ` Peter Todd
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='CAPg+sBh=YDQhwNRWjhOQtWVPMZ0+D0MnprZK+vMjsuC-=RxAQA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=jgarzik@bitpay$(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