On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:43:13AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Luke Dashjr <[email protected]> wrote: > > Policy is node/miner fiat and not the domain of BIPs. > > Even accepting the premise that policy is pure local fiat, the > conclusion doesn't follow for me. BIPs about best practices or > especially anything where interop or coordination are, I think, > reasonable uses of the process. > > E.g. you might want to know what other kinds of policy are in use if > you're to have any hope of authoring transactions that work at all!
For example, consider Luke-Jr's own BIP19, M-of-N Standard Transactions,
a non-consensus-critical suggested policy change!
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0019.mediawiki
Anyway, full-RBF has significant impacts for wallet authors and many
other stakeholders. At minimum it changes how you will want to author
and (re)author transactions, much like BIP19 does.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000ffad4a87861689c067f5dd3b98b84d8096572c163aa913a
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
