Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-01-26 📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-01-26
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> To maximize fork divergence, it might make sense to require this. Any
> sensible proposal for a hard fork would include a change to the sighash
> anyway, so might as well make it required, no?
>
Compatibility with existing transaction-signing software and hardware
should be considered.
I think any hard fork proposal should support a reasonable number of
reasonable-size old-sighash transactions, to allow a smooth transaction of
wallet software and hardware and to support anybody who might have a
hardware wallet locked away in a safe deposit box for years.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170126/ec58cbf4/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> To maximize fork divergence, it might make sense to require this. Any
> sensible proposal for a hard fork would include a change to the sighash
> anyway, so might as well make it required, no?
>
Compatibility with existing transaction-signing software and hardware
should be considered.
I think any hard fork proposal should support a reasonable number of
reasonable-size old-sighash transactions, to allow a smooth transaction of
wallet software and hardware and to support anybody who might have a
hardware wallet locked away in a safe deposit box for years.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170126/ec58cbf4/attachment.html>;