Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XlkHc-0006LP-Ey for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:00:52 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.169; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XlkHY-0002eb-LJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:00:52 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hn18so7066415igb.4 for ; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 12:00:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.33.132 with SMTP id h126mr2366530ioh.92.1415131243337; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 12:00:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.98.40 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:00:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141104191313.GA5493@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:00:43 -0800 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (pieter.wuille[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 X-Headers-End: 1XlkHY-0002eb-LJ Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:00:52 -0000 On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Peter Todd 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