Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.178 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.178; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f178.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSm9o-Xz4i0_wPGPfh_108ttnNPkXtxv5hCj9CsJh=AXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgPG+2AMbEHSRQNFn6FikbRzxkWduj5MSZLz-O6Wh940w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALf2ePwc=es-aDSeJO2DZwu9kyHwq9dcp5TrMAhN-dvYwNjy-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<52FBD948.906@monetize.io> <201402122252.31060.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAPWm=eV9YP3wAbCFt1JcSqJ6Jc3kY_546MVk3cHT+X8seC8vRw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSwjGohhiXuwhG3bJ5mLxSS8Dx0Hytmg7PhhRzwnw7FNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<EFA82A3F-2907-4B2B-9FCB-DCA02CA4EC63@mac.com>
	<CAPg+sBgnuNygR7_yny1=+wGWmeLcub0A8_ep3U-5ewmQJk71jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<601EE159-9022-4ADF-80AC-7E1C39E86A65@mac.com>
	<CAPg+sBg9=XK=PGSW8DcU1LR85oeTDmpS4U-vYUXbraZQpU+edg@mail.gmail.com>
	<81A62AB7-9EC6-439E-96CF-F064F0151BB9@mac.com>
	<CANEZrP26U3BjEi66xjD9SRxrAupGmYC6mKiYYw27BH3q1b1hLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSm9o-Xz4i0_wPGPfh_108ttnNPkXtxv5hCj9CsJh=AXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:07:42 +0000
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1B8d4FBm9zgKSUC=o9JdeRG4K6NdV5fD9hrWsBVV--jw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134a7e49536a804f2e470c7
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] [BIP proposal] Dealing with
	malleability
Precedence: list

--001a1134a7e49536a804f2e470c7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

No, I was thinking of the height in coinbase change. At any rate, p2sh was
supported by the consensus code in bitcoinj for a long time already, since
it was first written.

Support for sending to such addresses in the wallet appeared once an app
that wanted that support also appeared, which seems OK - the market for
wallets is very competitive so there will always be some skew in what
features are worked on in what order. V3 transactions are a consensus
change that wallets will pick up at different times like any other feature.
On 20 Feb 2014 19:45, "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> > We've done forking changes before much faster than a year and that was
> with
> > less experience. If we want, we can get this done within months.
>
> You mean P2SH... which your implementation has only picked up support
> for in the last month or so?
>

--001a1134a7e49536a804f2e470c7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">No, I was thinking of the height in coinbase change. At any =
rate, p2sh was supported by the consensus code in bitcoinj for a long time =
already, since it was first written.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Support for sending to such addresses in the wallet appeared=
 once an app that wanted that support also appeared, which seems OK - the m=
arket for wallets is very competitive so there will always be some skew in =
what features are worked on in what order. V3 transactions are a consensus =
change that wallets will pick up at different times like any other feature.=
</p>

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 20 Feb 2014 19:45, &quot;Gregory Maxwell&quot=
; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com">gmaxwell@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrot=
e:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Mike Hearn &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan=
99.net">mike@plan99.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; We&#39;ve done forking changes before much faster than a year and that=
 was with<br>
&gt; less experience. If we want, we can get this done within months.<br>
<br>
You mean P2SH... which your implementation has only picked up support<br>
for in the last month or so?<br>
</blockquote></div>

--001a1134a7e49536a804f2e470c7--