Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-10-22 📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-10-22
📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 03:58:58PM -0500, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On 22/10/15 15:43, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > BIPs should in general not be
> > designed around current software
>
> I strongly disagree with this statement.
>
> There is a version byte in the payment code specification for a reason.
>
> Version 1 payment codes are designed to be deployable by wallet
> implementers today, without requiring them to wait on any network-level
> changes whatsoever, which includes IsStandard() redefinitions, or
> yet-to-be-invented-and-deployed filtering schemes.
>
> As far as I know, multi-push OP_RETURN outputs are not standard
> transactions and so wallet users can not rely on transactions containing
> them to be relayed through the network, therefore any improvement to the
> protocol which requires that feature is not appropriate for version 1.

FWIW multi-push OP_RETURN outputs will be standard in v0.12.0:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6424

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000066dc6b040d8be42153f784df37745b46c4ad667e0788781
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151022/ee1cb995/attachment.sig>;