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
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <andyparkins@gmail.com>) id 1RsHFc-0003Pi-5n
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:12:12 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RsHFY-0002OY-Du
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:12:12 +0000
Received: by werc1 with SMTP id c1so309015wer.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:12:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.133.71 with SMTP id p49mr1686171wei.8.1328029922221;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:12:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dvr.localnet (mail.360visiontechnology.com. [92.42.121.178])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l12sm39672187wiw.0.2012.01.31.09.11.58
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:11:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:11:56 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.3; i686; ; )
References: <201201311651.02726.andyparkins@gmail.com>
<201201311158.50801.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <201201311158.50801.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart4110205.gi9WDAQMsh";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201201311711.57046.andyparkins@gmail.com>
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
(andyparkins[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: 1RsHFY-0002OY-Du
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP16/17 replacement
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, 31 Jan 2012 17:12:12 -0000
--nextPart4110205.gi9WDAQMsh
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2012 January 31 Tuesday, Luke-Jr wrote:
> I'm not aware of any remaining *tangible* objections to BIP 17 at this
> point (Gavin seems concerned over a theoretical
> risk-that-nobody-has-thought-of), but if there's a better solution, I'm
> perfectly fine Withdrawing BIP 17 to support it.
I imagine the BIP16 supporters would say the same? Isn't that the essence =
of=20
the current impasse?
> Both BIP 16 and 17 are backward compatible enough that people can continue
> to use the old clients with each other. An upgrade is only required to
> send to (or create/receive on) the new 3...-form addresses. That being
> said, it's quite possible to rewrite the practical implications of both
> BIP 16 and 17 in the format you seem to be suggesting. Doing so would even
> get rid of one of the major objections to BIP 16 (its inconsistency).
My suggestion is backward compatible. You'd only have to make version2=20
transactions for version2 addresses; and the join between version1 and=20
version2 is not a problem since the version1 source can be detected, and th=
e=20
handling of the version2 transaction altered as appropriate (it's only a=20
matter of switching from the hash check to running the two scripts as=20
normal).
Andy
=2D-=20
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins@gmail.com
--nextPart4110205.gi9WDAQMsh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAk8oIN0ACgkQwQJ9gE9xL22LNwCg0/u/3UN2NYrBxEuozKOrumZ4
X2IAoN5Q0KUM0FE0uN/rNiGO7cTJxT3v
=YPdz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart4110205.gi9WDAQMsh--
|
