Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10 📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10
📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn at vinumeris.com> wrote:
> We're not modifying BIP 70, it's now immutable and can only be extended.
Well, yes, I guess it's modifying that in the extension BIP.
> There's really not much point in having a dedicated chain ID for regtest
> mode. You shouldn't be finding BIP70 requests for regtest outside of your
> own developer machine, where the id doesn't matter.
The point is not having exceptions and treating all supported chains
in the same way in the code.
Having a special case for regtest makes the code more complex, not simpler.
📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn at vinumeris.com> wrote:
> We're not modifying BIP 70, it's now immutable and can only be extended.
Well, yes, I guess it's modifying that in the extension BIP.
> There's really not much point in having a dedicated chain ID for regtest
> mode. You shouldn't be finding BIP70 requests for regtest outside of your
> own developer machine, where the id doesn't matter.
The point is not having exceptions and treating all supported chains
in the same way in the code.
Having a special case for regtest makes the code more complex, not simpler.