1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00C93AF4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:47:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3261B2B8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:47:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx04.mykolab.com (mx04.mykolab.com [10.20.7.102])
by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECB34240D9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:47:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:47:50 +0200
Message-ID: <2619297.H12PQLatFI@kiwi>
In-Reply-To: <20160922182618.GA19147@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <7844645.RLYLWYmWtM@garp> <5590176.JJpBoGr4Tc@garp>
<20160922182618.GA19147@fedora-21-dvm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:53:22 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Requesting BIP assignment; Flexible Transactions.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:47:55 -0000
On Thursday, 22 September 2016 14:26:18 CEST Peter Todd wrote:
> > =ABThe way towards that flexibility is to use a generic concept made
> > popular various decades ago with the XML format. The idea is that we
> > give each field a name and this means that new fields can be added or
> > optional fields can be omitted from individual transactions=BB
>=20
> That argument is not applicable to required fields:=20
The argument that optional fields can be omitted is not applicable to=20
required fields, you are correct. That should be rather obvious because=20
required fields are not optional fields.
> the code to get the
> fields from the extensible format is every bit as complex as the very
> simple code required to deserialize/serialize objects in the current
> system.
Probably a tiny bit more complex as the current format assumes a lot more.
You may have misread my email because there was no argument made towards=20
complexity. The argument was towards flexibility.
> In any case your BIP needs to give some explicit examples of hypothetical
> upgrades in the future, how they'd take advantage of this, and what the
> code to do so would look like.
Why?
> > > Also, if you're going to break compatibility with all existing
> > > software, it makes sense to use a format that extends the merkle
> > > tree down into the transaction inputs and outputs.
> >=20
> > Please argue your case.
>=20
> See my arguments re: segwit a few months ago, e.g. the hardware wallet
> txin proof use-case.
Please consider that I'm not going to search for something based on a vague=
=20
reference like that, if you want to convince me you could you at least=20
provide a URL?
You want me to see the value of your idea, I think you should at least=20
provide the argument. Isn't that fair?
Thanks for your email Peter, would love you to put a bit more time into=20
understanding flexible transactions and we can have a proper discussion=20
about it.
|
