Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-06-29 📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-29
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:43:13AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > Policy is node/miner fiat and not the domain of BIPs.
>
> Even accepting the premise that policy is pure local fiat, the
> conclusion doesn't follow for me. BIPs about best practices or
> especially anything where interop or coordination are, I think,
> reasonable uses of the process.
>
> E.g. you might want to know what other kinds of policy are in use if
> you're to have any hope of authoring transactions that work at all!

For example, consider Luke-Jr's own BIP19, M-of-N Standard Transactions,
a non-consensus-critical suggested policy change!

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0019.mediawiki

Anyway, full-RBF has significant impacts for wallet authors and many
other stakeholders. At minimum it changes how you will want to author
and (re)author transactions, much like BIP19 does.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000ffad4a87861689c067f5dd3b98b84d8096572c163aa913a
-------------- 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/20150629/c0f09f91/attachment.sig>;