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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140425211426.GD8994@savin>
References: <CAE-z3OVsQAya3RDzMTvKNK4hLGQVjFOp6Bseo=xK4ApOdPCh8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE28kUT4rZJHzww5gsdkCyzyKV6q2bV4h4rL_hzAcvhtCpKW4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140425201403.GA8994@savin>
	<CAAS2fgQc_UgwYgc0kVso-cL6xqP-2MGg2JoWDHYyAUXhQkyaoA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140425211426.GD8994@savin>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:52:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUM6_+qtxzcLg1FkUe8jxCLnJDya=eH9O5+LY_KRrhZpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11355746bf6cc004f7e4f971
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP - Hash Locked Transaction
Precedence: list

--001a11355746bf6cc004f7e4f971
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, 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?


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

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Along those lines, rather than doing up yet another format specific type<br=
>
as Tier Nolan is doing with his BIP, why not write a BIP looking at how<br>
the IsStandard() rules could be removed?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Re=
moval of isStandard() would be even better/more flexible.<br><br>A whitelis=
t of low risk opcodes seems like a reasonable compromise.<br><br>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).<br><br></div><div>Changing the entire philosoph=
y behind isStandard() is a much bigger change than just adding one new type=
.<br></div></div></div></div>

--001a11355746bf6cc004f7e4f971--