Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.180 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.180; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f180.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20141104200744.GA16945@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CAPg+sBjygohgFf2hE9cGH3ZmV0MaeniZDDNO+hFxOxo-s_d81A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141104191313.GA5493@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAJHLa0NiWJtb0aSRddZmBtQRkfMyQ957jnZi=qGfL6eOb76gFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBh=YDQhwNRWjhOQtWVPMZ0+D0MnprZK+vMjsuC-=RxAQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141104200744.GA16945@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 23:53:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgGEUXpqYanzgaF31_Pup9oQuZvY2yeZqdj2h5er-YR3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades
Precedence: list

Ok, addressed these (and a few other things) in
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/117:
* Better names for the rules.
* Clarify interaction of BIP62 with P2SH.
* Clarify that known hashtypes are required, despite not being part of DER.
* Use v2 transactions instead of v3 transactions.
* Apply the optional rules only to strict v2, and not higher or lower.


On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:00:43PM -0800, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Keep in mind that we may even have a circumstance where we need to
> introduce *two* different new tx version numbers in a single soft-fork,
> say because we find an exploit that has two different fixes, each of
> which breaks something.
>
> I don't think we have any certainty how new features will be added in
> the future - just look at how we only recently realised new opcodes
> won't be associated with tx version number bumps - so I'm loath to setup
> expectations.
>
> Besides, transactions can certainly be verified for correctness in a
> stand-alone fashion outside a block; CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY was
> specifically designed so that verifying scripts containing it could be
> done in a self-contained manner only referencing the transaction the
> script was within.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000000036655c955dd94ba7f9856814f3cb87f003e311566921807