ZmnSCPxj <zmnsc...@protonmail.com> writes: > I believe this is actually my code, which was later refactored by John > Barboza when we were standardizing the `param` system.
Ah, sorry! > This was intended only as a simple precaution against creating non-standard > transaction, and not an assumption that future versions should be invalid. > The intent is that further `else if` branches would be added for newer > witness versions and whatever length restrictions they may have, as the `/* > Insert other witness versions here. */` comment implies. Yes, I mentioned it here because I've found this to be a common misconception; the *idea* was that application's segwit code would not have to be reworked for future upgrades, but that information propagated poorly. (Just as well, because of overly strict standardness rules, the overflow bug, and now the proposed validation changes, turns out this lack of forward compat is a feature!) Thanks! Rusty. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
