Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96AAF90
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun,  1 Nov 2015 17:28:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68034139
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun,  1 Nov 2015 17:28:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:54980 helo=server47.web-hosting.com)
	by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85)
	(envelope-from <jl2012@xbt.hk>)
	id 1ZswQu-0044qB-Uv; Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:28:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:28:39 -0500
From: jl2012@xbt.hk
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0Evf3B_NtmdKxc_M1xRQh-jSC4JzTHCx8Ez9RzCypvMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0Evf3B_NtmdKxc_M1xRQh-jSC4JzTHCx8Ez9RzCypvMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <df48a2c44441f39c71579aa5e474ec38@xbt.hk>
X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
	please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id:
	jl2012@xbt.hk
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 17:40:00 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility requirements for hard or soft forks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 17:28:48 -0000

My answer is simply "No", you don't have to maintain backward 
compatibility for non-standard tx.

The same question applies to P2SH. Before the deployment of BIP16, one 
could have created a time-locked tx with one of the output was in the 
form of HASH160 <hash> EQUAL. The <hash>, however, is not a hash of a 
valid serialized script, so the output is now permanently frozen.

It also applies to all the OP codes disabled by Satoshi: one could have 
created a time-locked tx with those now disabled OP codes.

Same for BIP65 with the use of OP_NOP2. Following your logic, we can't 
make any softfork related to the script system.

I think it is very important to make it clear that non-standard txs and 
non-standard scripts may become invalid in the future

Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-10-28 10:06 寫到:
> I'm hoping this fits under the moderation rule of "short-term changes
> to the Bitcoin protcol" (I'm not exactly clear on what is meant by
> "short-term"; it would be lovely if the moderators would start a
> thread on bitcoin-discuss to clarify that):
> 
> Should it be a requirement that ANY one-megabyte transaction that is
> valid
> under the existing rules also be valid under new rules?
> 
> Pro:  There could be expensive-to-validate transactions created and
> given a
> lockTime in the future stored somewhere safe. Their owners may have no
> other way of spending the funds (they might have thrown away the
> private
> keys), and changing validation rules to be more strict so that those
> transactions are invalid would be an unacceptable confiscation of
> funds.
> 
> Con: It is extremely unlikely there are any such large, timelocked
> transactions, because the Core code has had a clear policy for years
> that
> 100,000-byte transactions are &quot;standard&quot; and are relayed and
> mined, and
> larger transactions are not. The requirement should be relaxed so that
> only
> valid 100,000-byte transaction under old consensus rules must be valid
> under new consensus rules (larger transactions may or may not be
> valid).
> 
> I had to wrestle with that question when I implemented BIP101/Bitcoin
> XT
> when deciding on a limit for signature hashing (and decided the right
> answer was to support any "non-attack"1MB transaction; see
> https://bitcoincore.org/~gavin/ValidationSanity.pdf [1] for more
> details).
> 
> --
> 
> --
> Gavin Andresen
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://bitcoincore.org/~gavin/ValidationSanity.pdf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev