I think you're misunderstanding the point. The way you get IsStandard
changed is that you make an application-oriented BIP detailing the use
of some new standard transaction type (say, generalized hash-locked
transactions for atomic swaps). We then discuss that proposal for its
technical merits
This is a BIP to allow the spender to choose one of multiple standard
scripts to use for spending the output.
https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-0045.mediawiki
This is required as part of the atomic cross chain transfer protocol. It
is required so that outputs can be retrieved, if
I believe you meant to link here instead?
https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-0046.mediawiki
This looks reasonable from a brief skim over, but does not define any use
cases (it mentions necessary for atomic cross chain transfers, but does not
explain how it is useful for that -
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:17:48PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
I believe you meant to link here instead?
https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-0046.mediawiki
This looks reasonable from a brief skim over, but does not define any use
cases (it mentions necessary for atomic cross
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
I believe you meant to link here instead?
https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-0046.mediawiki
Yeah, sorry.
This looks reasonable from a brief skim over, but does not define any use
cases (it mentions necessary
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Keep in mind that P2SH redeemScripts are limited to just 520 bytes;
there's going to be many cases where more complex transactions just
can't be encoded in P2SH at all.
True. Having said that, this is just a change to
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote:
This looks reasonable from a brief skim over, but does not define any use
cases (it mentions necessary for atomic cross chain transfers, but does
not
explain how it is useful for that - perhaps that belongs in another BIP
On Friday, April 25, 2014 8:02:41 PM Tier Nolan wrote:
I don't think the cross chain system needs a BIP (except to justify this
one).
If cross chain transfer become popular, then it would be useful to ensure
that clients are interoperable, but first things first. If the
transactions aren't
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
They define standard for interoperability between
software. So, if you want nodes to relay these transactions, you need to
convince them, not merely write a BIP for the transaction format.
I agree with you in theory, each miner
9 matches
Mail list logo
