Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.178; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f178.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1wi=Wc+BgMf+9GdLLbNMfSex8XkdCLWuAeS3sj9fDo1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjygohgFf2hE9cGH3ZmV0MaeniZDDNO+hFxOxo-s_d81A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1wi=Wc+BgMf+9GdLLbNMfSex8XkdCLWuAeS3sj9fDo1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 05:50:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBj=SxJiQiChLThNK=PUh-a=V+S=RV2pSUSdHc53GCA1+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades
Precedence: list

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> This is another problem that only exists because of the desire to soft fork.
> If "script 2.0" is a hard fork upgrade, you no longer need weird hacks like
> scripts-which-are-not-scripts.

I agree.
I also agree that the desire for softforks sometimes lead to ugly hacks.
I also that they are not "nice" philosophically because they reduce
the security model of former full nodes to SPV wrt. the new rules
without their knowledge.
I also agree that hardforks should be possible when they're useful.

But in practice, hardforks have a much larger risk which just isn't
justified for everything. Especially when it's about introducing a new
transaction type that won't be used before the softfork takes place
anyway.

And to keep the option for doing future softforks open, I believe we
need to be aware of the effects of changes like this.

-- 
Pieter