On Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:58:58 PM Justus Ranvier wrote: > I strongly disagree with this statement.
Well, I strongly disagree with adopting the BIP as it stands. > Version 1 payment codes are designed to be deployable by wallet > implementers today, without requiring them to wait on any network-level > changes whatsoever, which includes IsStandard() redefinitions, or > yet-to-be-invented-and-deployed filtering schemes. No, those are not network-level changes. They are mere software changes that can be deployed along with the rest of the proposal. > As far as I know, multi-push OP_RETURN outputs are not standard > transactions and so wallet users can not rely on transactions containing > them to be relayed through the network, therefore any improvement to the > protocol which requires that feature is not appropriate for version 1. "Standard" means defined in a BIP. To date, there are no standard transactions using OP_RETURN period. IsStandard is a node policy that should have no influence on future BIPs. > When additional capabilities are deployed in the network such that > Bitcoin users can rely on their existence, that would be a great time to > specify a version 2 payment code that uses those features and encourage > users to upgrade (which should be a fairly smooth process since their > actual keys don't need to change). Such changes should not be made until there is a standard for them. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
