MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190306180800.GC10453@boulet>
	<dSmKNsbsqQaRCPeT2EYOwhAvBXUvtSVJZVPLSAeYnSElB0WM7iY3nKQJfQAj3AWfP-oFpTqKk9OvrQtlM6W3c_2tv9HwGN5cYy_XgZuDiGM=@achow101.com>
In-Reply-To: <dSmKNsbsqQaRCPeT2EYOwhAvBXUvtSVJZVPLSAeYnSElB0WM7iY3nKQJfQAj3AWfP-oFpTqKk9OvrQtlM6W3c_2tv9HwGN5cYy_XgZuDiGM=@achow101.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 00:40:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR_smsA66DKJUmN_c2qeg0v36OcJhFWc_ZddOLbxG3Onw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Chow <achow101-lists@achow101.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP174 / PSBT extensions
Precedence: list

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:49 PM Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I feel like this breaks the central idea of PSBT that a PSBT contains everything you need to construct a transaction.
> This would rely on parties in the transaction having state and remembering things which I don't think is something
> that we can assume.

I think it's perfectly fine for someone to have a propritary extension
to PSBT that isn't going to work right unless used only between their
own stuff or need a translator to talk to ordinary PSBT stuff.

For that purpose, having some kind of versioning field that you can
use to indicate what weird PSBT dialect you're speaking might be
helpful, if only to allow for more reasonable error messages.