Hi Alan,
I have now read BIP0010 - one first idea is: add a link to it on the wiki (or
remove all bip links from the wiki... - we don't want two places for BIPs...)
I am not sure where you prefer the discussion on the content of the BIP - but
now you get it here, but feel free to redirect...
Likes:
* inclusion of prevout txout scripts - could prove handy
* that it is a proposal to do this similarly on all clients
Dislikes:
* the format - I guess I would prefer a normal JSON format - where the scripts
gets populated step by step. As for the scriptPubKey (now an awful name...) it
would be easy to just add it to the JSON, or have the prevouts simply be the
actual txouts instead of {hash,n}.
Comments:
* it is good to have this proposal, but I think that once we see ways to
communicate it they could very well radically steer how a format should look.
Take e.g. the discussion we had with Gavin yesterday, if we had chosen to move
in that direction BIP0010 would had been useless. So perhaps a bit premature?
Cheers,
Michael
On 10/11/2011, at 04:00, Alan Reiner wrote:
> The purpose of creating BIP 0010 now, is to encourage a standard that
> developers want to adopt, from the outset. Every developer who is planning
> to touch multi-signature transactions, is going to have to solve the problem
> of multi-sig tx exchanges, eventually. By offering an excellent solution
> before they've started asking the question, there's a good chance people will
> use it. Hear me out...
>
> Protocols get fragmented when there's multiple competing ways to do
> something, each having some advantages the others don't have. This leads to
> developers with differing priorities picking different ones, or creating
> their own. However, I believe that the problem BIP 0010 seeks to solve is a
> fairly straightforward problem. There's not a lot of variety in the
> solutions that could compete against it. People just need a way to pass this
> data around, and they want it to be as convenient to use, and as easy to
> implement as possible. In that sense, I think BIP 0010 (or some future
> variant) is fairly optimal as a building block for higher-level protocols.
>
> If anyone has ideas for why someone would want to create a competing idea to
> BIP 0010 (besides not being aware of it when they start), I'd like to discuss
> it. I'm fairly confident that any such ideas could just be added to BIP 0010
> and thus reset the question of why anyone would need a competing idea.
>
>
>
> On 11/09/2011 03:03 PM, Michael Grønager wrote:
>> My main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that they
>> might never be standard (I think a great number of clients will emerge - and
>> this would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the p2p network it
>> will be a seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, even across
>> different clients. But I share your concern on the
>>
>> /M
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> RSA(R) Conference 2012
> Save $700 by Nov 18
> Register now
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Michael Gronager, PhD
Owner Ceptacle / NDGF Director, NORDUnet A/S
Jens Juels Gade 33
2100 Copenhagen E
Mobile: +45 31 62 14 01
E-mail: grona...@ceptacle.com
Michael Gronager, PhD
Owner Ceptacle / NDGF Director, NORDUnet A/S
Jens Juels Gade 33
2100 Copenhagen E
Mobile: +45 31 62 14 01
E-mail: grona...@ceptacle.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
