diff options
| author | Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> | 2012-01-31 12:45:14 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2012-01-31 17:45:20 +0000 |
| commit | 0521ee3d49d13953f2dd695c62dba6184fd9cc79 (patch) | |
| tree | 4ffdb99873241a19587324cff99c3c1bd27de886 | |
| parent | f95ab7cb19fe2b7855fe4f74122be9434a15bf8c (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-0521ee3d49d13953f2dd695c62dba6184fd9cc79.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-0521ee3d49d13953f2dd695c62dba6184fd9cc79.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP16/17 replacement
| -rw-r--r-- | e7/9c8481ba629c19ca4c7f7eed9e17fd108f556b | 151 |
1 files changed, 151 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/e7/9c8481ba629c19ca4c7f7eed9e17fd108f556b b/e7/9c8481ba629c19ca4c7f7eed9e17fd108f556b new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5ba48f8d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/e7/9c8481ba629c19ca4c7f7eed9e17fd108f556b @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1RsHlg-00058z-Hl + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:45:20 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.212.47; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; + helo=mail-vw0-f47.google.com; +Received: from mail-vw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47]) + by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1RsHlf-0003dy-Ka + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:45:20 +0000 +Received: by vbbff1 with SMTP id ff1so335701vbb.34 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:45:14 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.52.67.229 with SMTP id q5mr11196070vdt.14.1328031914231; Tue, + 31 Jan 2012 09:45:14 -0800 (PST) +Received: by 10.220.151.200 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:45:14 -0800 (PST) +In-Reply-To: <201201311651.02726.andyparkins@gmail.com> +References: <201201311651.02726.andyparkins@gmail.com> +Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:45:14 -0500 +Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTvvDT+acJQfwAGpVNeA2PAQ7wip9xXc-__V2oz-=Kk6Q@mail.gmail.com> +From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> +To: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider + (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from + author's domain + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature + 0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-Headers-End: 1RsHlf-0003dy-Ka +Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP16/17 replacement +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:45:20 -0000 + +On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> wrot= +e: +> Hello, +> +> Gulp. =C2=A0Am a little nervous about wading into this swamp. =C2=A0Howev= +er, it seems +> to me that the debate has veered into the personal and away from the + +I think you've been deceived by people who have some interest in +promoting this as some sort of big controversy, or perhaps just +confused by the general level of noise. + +The differences between BIP16/BIP17 are technically obscure, everyone +who is well versed in the issue (with the potential exception of +Luke). There is broad consensus among the involved technically minded +parties over just about all of it. + +Luke has been maintaining an opinion tracker page: +https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes + +reflecting the views of core developers and people who've been +technically involved enough to have an informed opinion. + +>=C2=A0Surely if there are objections to both suggestions, that another +> solution might be better? + +There is always a different color that the shed could be painted. +Expecting absolute consensus on the _best_ way forward is an +unreasonable standard, especially if you're going to invite the +opinions of many people. + +Depending on how you count we have considered a good two dozen options +in this space=E2=80=94 Starting with the OP_CAT key combinations many mont= +hs +back, and including many variants of the current ideas. The BIPs only +represent the "final" surviving ideas. + +In particular, BIP16 was the isolated consensus path forward that came +out of the discussions about the concerns that BIP12 was too +computationally powerful=E2=80=94 I don't think I can identify any particul= +ar +person as the author of the BIP16 idea. At the the time BIP16 became +a BIP only Luke was actively objecting to it. + +Though his hard work and tireless (...unstoppable dogmatic) promotion +he's managed to build a workable alternative, and it now has some +support other than himself. This, however, doesn't constitute a +material schism. + +> this idea up for my traditional mailing-list roasting but with the hope t= +hat + +As always, asbestos underwear is required. + +> If the change is going to be a big one anyway and will require a client +> upgrade why not... + +It does not, in fact=E2=80=94 Yes, it requires a client update to make use = +of +the new functionality, but old nodes will happily continue to validate +things. It's hard to express how critical this is distinctly. +Bitcoin is, predominantly, a zero-trust system. Nodes don't trust that +things were done right, the validate them for themselves. + +A breaking change of the kind you suggest is not something that would +be considered lightly, and this is certainly not justified for this. + +> =C2=A0- Increase the version number in transactions to make a new transac= +tion +> =C2=A0 structure +> =C2=A0- Dump the "scriptPubKey" field completely. =C2=A0Everything will b= +e pay-to- +> =C2=A0 script-hash in version2 transactions +> =C2=A0- Replace it with "hashOfClaimingScript" +> =C2=A0- Add an "unsignedParameters" array. + +If we ever were to scrap the system, I think we very much would do +something like what you describe here... and as much has been +documented: + +https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist +(see "Elimination of output scripts") + +But, to be clear, this stuff is pretty much fantasy. I'm doubtful that +it will ever happen, doubtful that we can get the kind of development +resources required to pull off a true breaking change in a way that +people would actually trust upgrading to=E2=80=94 at least not before a tim= +e +that the system is simply too big to make that kind of change. + + |