On 2012 January 31 Tuesday, Luke-Jr wrote: > I'm not aware of any remaining *tangible* objections to BIP 17 at this > point (Gavin seems concerned over a theoretical > risk-that-nobody-has-thought-of), but if there's a better solution, I'm > perfectly fine Withdrawing BIP 17 to support it.
I imagine the BIP16 supporters would say the same? Isn't that the essence of the current impasse? > Both BIP 16 and 17 are backward compatible enough that people can continue > to use the old clients with each other. An upgrade is only required to > send to (or create/receive on) the new 3...-form addresses. That being > said, it's quite possible to rewrite the practical implications of both > BIP 16 and 17 in the format you seem to be suggesting. Doing so would even > get rid of one of the major objections to BIP 16 (its inconsistency). My suggestion is backward compatible. You'd only have to make version2 transactions for version2 addresses; and the join between version1 and version2 is not a problem since the version1 source can be detected, and the handling of the version2 transaction altered as appropriate (it's only a matter of switching from the hash check to running the two scripts as normal). Andy -- Dr Andy Parkins andypark...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development