From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:58:49 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <201201311651.02726.andyparkins@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201201311651.02726.andyparkins@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201201311158.50801.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP16/17 replacement
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:50:58 AM Andy Parkins wrote:
> Gulp.  Am a little nervous about wading into this swamp.  However, it seems
> to me that the debate has veered into the personal and away from the
> technical.  Surely if there are objections to both suggestions, that
> another solution might be better?  The answer doesn't have to be A or B,
> if the answer C turns out to be acceptable.

I'm not aware of any remaining *tangible* objections to BIP 17 at this point 
(Gavin seems concerned over a theoretical risk-that-nobody-has-thought-of), 
but if there's a better solution, I'm perfectly fine Withdrawing BIP 17 to 
support it.

> If the change is going to be a big one anyway and will require a client
> upgrade why not...

Both BIP 16 and 17 are backward compatible enough that people can continue to 
use the old clients with each other. An upgrade is only required to send to 
(or create/receive on) the new 3...-form addresses. That being said, it's 
quite possible to rewrite the practical implications of both BIP 16 and 17 in 
the format you seem to be suggesting. Doing so would even get rid of one of 
the major objections to BIP 16 (its inconsistency).