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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1XlkHc-0006LP-Ey
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:00:52 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.169 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.169; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f169.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XlkHY-0002eb-LJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:00:52 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hn18so7066415igb.4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 12:00:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.33.132 with SMTP id h126mr2366530ioh.92.1415131243337;
Tue, 04 Nov 2014 12:00:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.98.40 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:00:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0NiWJtb0aSRddZmBtQRkfMyQ957jnZi=qGfL6eOb76gFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjygohgFf2hE9cGH3ZmV0MaeniZDDNO+hFxOxo-s_d81A@mail.gmail.com>
<20141104191313.GA5493@savin.petertodd.org>
<CAJHLa0NiWJtb0aSRddZmBtQRkfMyQ957jnZi=qGfL6eOb76gFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:00:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBh=YDQhwNRWjhOQtWVPMZ0+D0MnprZK+vMjsuC-=RxAQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1XlkHY-0002eb-LJ
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:00:52 -0000
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> 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.
I prefer to see consensus rules as one set of rules (especially
because they only really apply to blocks - the part for lone
transactions is just policy), and thus have a single numbering. Still,
I have no strong opinion about it and have now heard 3 'moderately
against' comments. I'm fine with using nVersion==2 for transactions.
--
Pieter
|
