On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Mike Hearn <m...@plan99.net> wrote: > This is another problem that only exists because of the desire to soft fork. > If "script 2.0" is a hard fork upgrade, you no longer need weird hacks like > scripts-which-are-not-scripts.
I agree. I also agree that the desire for softforks sometimes lead to ugly hacks. I also that they are not "nice" philosophically because they reduce the security model of former full nodes to SPV wrt. the new rules without their knowledge. I also agree that hardforks should be possible when they're useful. But in practice, hardforks have a much larger risk which just isn't justified for everything. Especially when it's about introducing a new transaction type that won't be used before the softfork takes place anyway. And to keep the option for doing future softforks open, I believe we need to be aware of the effects of changes like this. -- Pieter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
