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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1RsH2v-0002hf-S3
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:59:05 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RsH2q-00020O-A9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:59:05 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-164-217.dhcp.embarqhsd.net
[184.4.164.217]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC22A56072E
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:58:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:58:49 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <201201311651.02726.andyparkins@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201201311651.02726.andyparkins@gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583
X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583
X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201201311158.50801.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain -0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RsH2q-00020O-A9
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 16:59:05 -0000
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:50:58 AM Andy Parkins wrote:
> Gulp. Am a little nervous about wading into this swamp. However, it seems
> to me that the debate has veered into the personal and away from the
> technical. Surely if there are objections to both suggestions, that
> another solution might be better? The answer doesn't have to be A or B,
> if the answer C turns out to be acceptable.
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.
> If the change is going to be a big one anyway and will require a client
> upgrade why not...
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).
|
