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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades
Precedence: list

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/