> But those issues are solvable through other, non-backwards incompatible > means. For example, mandate that a <transaction hash, output index> refers > to the first such pair that is not already spent. No?
Yes, that is essentially what BIP 30 did. We want to do this also, partly for "belt and suspenders" security but mostly for two reasons: 1. To test using block/transaction version numbers to smoothly roll out changes. The next change we need to make might be prompted by some crisis; better to learn any lessons now, when we have the luxury of time to fix problems that might crop up. 2. We think we'll all appreciate the change in a year or three, when the whole network has upgraded and we can start writing code that assumes all new blocks past a certain checkpoint contain their height; that should make it easier to do things like figure out whether or not an orphan chain can possibly be part of the main chain. -- -- Gavin Andresen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
