MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OWJ8YvXU5aGqgs9VJnW99va=0=FoObmpHS3irg4Kh6wrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0Evf3B_NtmdKxc_M1xRQh-jSC4JzTHCx8Ez9RzCypvMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<df48a2c44441f39c71579aa5e474ec38@xbt.hk>
	<CAE-z3OWJ8YvXU5aGqgs9VJnW99va=0=FoObmpHS3irg4Kh6wrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:33:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3w-=bqbfmG=gVxJ8SQZCoEXA7vQbFD+kC2CH36bd=xPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11402e1ebc924c052394b1a8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility requirements for hard or soft forks
Precedence: list

--001a11402e1ebc924c052394b1a8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> For guidelines
>
> * Transaction version numbers will be increased, if possible
> * Transactions with unknown/large version numbers are unsafe to use with
> locktime
> * Reasonable notice is given that the change is being contemplated
> * Non-opt-in changes will only be to protect the integrity of the network
>
> Locked transaction that can be validated without excessive load on the
> network should be safe to use, even if non-standard.
>
> An OP_CAT script that requires TBs of RAM to validate crosses the
> threshold of reasonableness.
>

I like those guidelines, although I'm sure there may be lots of arguing
over what fits under "protects the integrity of the network" or what
constitutes "reasonable notice" (publish a BIP at least 30 days before
rolling out a change? 60 days? a year?)

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a11402e1ebc924c052394b1a8
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 S=
un, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex"><div>For guidelines<br><br></div><div>* Transaction ve=
rsion numbers will be increased, if possible<br></div><div>* Transactions w=
ith unknown/large version numbers are unsafe to use with locktime<br></div>=
<div>* Reasonable notice is given that the change is being contemplated<br>=
</div><div>* Non-opt-in changes will only be to protect the integrity of th=
e network<br><br>Locked transaction that can be validated without excessive=
 load on the network should be safe to use, even if non-standard.<br></div>=
<div><br></div><div>An OP_CAT script that requires TBs of RAM to validate c=
rosses the threshold of reasonableness.=C2=A0 <br></div><div></div></blockq=
uote></div><br>I like those guidelines, although I&#39;m sure there may be =
lots of arguing over what fits under &quot;protects the integrity of the ne=
twork&quot; or what constitutes &quot;reasonable notice&quot; (publish a BI=
P at least 30 days before rolling out a change? 60 days? a year?)</div><div=
 class=3D"gmail_extra"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature"=
>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><br></div>
</div></div>

--001a11402e1ebc924c052394b1a8--