Thanks for your email Peter! On Tuesday 20 Sep 2016 17:56:44 Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:15:45PM +0200, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > === Serialization order=== > > > > The tokens defined above have to be serialized in a certain order for the > > transaction to be well-formatted. Not serializing transactions in the > > order specified would allow multiple interpretations of the data which > > can't be allowed. > > If the order of the tokens is fixed, the tokens themselves are redundant > information when tokens are required; when tokens may be omitted, a simple > "Some/None" flag to mark whether or not the optional data has been omitted > is appropriate.
This is addressed in the spec; https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/spec/transactionv4.md «The way towards that flexibility is to use a generic concept made popular various decades ago with the XML format. The idea is that we give each field a name and this means that new fields can be added or optional fields can be omitted from individual transactions» > Also, if you're going to break compatibility with all existing software, it > makes sense to use a format that extends the merkle tree down into the > transaction inputs and outputs. Please argue your case.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev