1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1XleVO-0000Qu-UT
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:50:42 +0000
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;
Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com ([209.85.213.178])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XleVN-00027k-4i
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:50:42 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id a13so6575186igq.17
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 05:50:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.91 with SMTP id l88mr9286262iod.61.1415109035828;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 05:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.98.40 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 05:50:35 -0800 (PST)
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
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: 1XleVN-00027k-4i
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <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, 04 Nov 2014 13:50:43 -0000
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
|
