On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: > BIP62 does make life easier for wallet authors as they don't have to > deal with malleability - maybe! -
Yes, I agree for most contract purposes CTLV is what you want to be using, instead of refund transactions beyond being more clearly correct, it shrinks the protocol state machine by one step. Though BIP62 also achieves the secondary goal of making required implementation behaviour more explicit (e.g. the parts enforced in all transactions), and that shouldn't be discounted. They're somewhat orthogonal, somwhat complementary things. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
