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
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1XlkDu-0004d7-IB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:57:02 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 209.85.223.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.180; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XlkDt-0002vP-40
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:57:02 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id y20so8390769ier.11
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:56:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=mNrua9FsJU4ajHUq4Dt/iv0P8181EKvZ3AytCCcP8Y0=;
b=ET4wIdJ/IdI4tjjm4ViYu4+rGeH4vA7nIHduQvy+rtPx/6TXM7LyrE7enTyDApDyIq
qIj1v0MYiXHaC/yCGghs1swx4CsBHb+UodV90315OyyilyQ4mVOndeAiSt7Ypgxf9XM4
qTFwsqSg+ulnAxAceR2GKpjqifFOoSNI7+fUCJUN1FEw18x2AIrELeuu2SeEMnf+Bq0f
VsgqhZWmvoQXd29tu+5TwCqYeHfxZKzcKMsnoHpvGhndfGd4dvMCnIOr6RV9cbGuxD2P
MNWMQQTCibykZsmeZI2mstKy/c5AO2v992vhunbPWlNG5Ssy1L8v/lHaICXlaWLhAyeH
YQNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmNq4hAYrr8Lm8O0GNkbhCxU3y1FCR11UfVBpALv+vfyUL8csyfr+6DmsgFjjh5sYOxaA/B
X-Received: by 10.107.28.131 with SMTP id c125mr31319384ioc.29.1415131015559;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:56:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.136.164 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 11:56:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141104191313.GA5493@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CAPg+sBjygohgFf2hE9cGH3ZmV0MaeniZDDNO+hFxOxo-s_d81A@mail.gmail.com>
<20141104191313.GA5493@savin.petertodd.org>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:56:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0NiWJtb0aSRddZmBtQRkfMyQ957jnZi=qGfL6eOb76gFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 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: 1XlkDt-0002vP-40
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 19:57:03 -0000
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> 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.
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
|
