Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wdo2R-0000GW-Mx for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:52:07 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.44; envelope-from=tier.nolan@gmail.com; helo=mail-qa0-f44.google.com; Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.216.44]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wdo2R-0000B4-0d for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:52:07 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hw13so4223973qab.31 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:52:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.19.133 with SMTP id 5mr14447456qgh.46.1398462721517; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.25.86 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:52:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140425211426.GD8994@savin> References: <20140425201403.GA8994@savin> <20140425211426.GD8994@savin> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:52:01 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan To: Bitcoin Development Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11355746bf6cc004f7e4f971 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (tier.nolan[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1Wdo2R-0000B4-0d Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP - Hash Locked Transaction X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:52:07 -0000 --001a11355746bf6cc004f7e4f971 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > Along those lines, rather than doing up yet another format specific type > as Tier Nolan is doing with his BIP, why not write a BIP looking at how > the IsStandard() rules could be removed? Removal of isStandard() would be even better/more flexible. A whitelist of low risk opcodes seems like a reasonable compromise. My thoughts behind these two BIPs are that they are a smaller change that adds functionality required for a particular use-case (and some others). Changing the entire philosophy behind isStandard() is a much bigger change than just adding one new type. --001a11355746bf6cc004f7e4f971 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
Along those lines, rather than doing up yet another format specific type as Tier Nolan is doing with his BIP, why not write a BIP looking at how
the IsStandard() rules could be removed?

Re= moval of isStandard() would be even better/more flexible.

A whitelis= t of low risk opcodes seems like a reasonable compromise.

My thought= s behind these two BIPs are that they are a smaller change that adds functionality required for a particular=20 use-case (and some others).

Changing the entire philosoph= y behind isStandard() is a much bigger change than just adding one new type= .
--001a11355746bf6cc004f7e4f971--