Tomas [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-12-30 📝 Original message:> The specification itself ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-12-30
📝 Original message:> The specification itself looks like an inefficient and bloaty reinvention
> of
> version bits.
The actual assignment of version bits isn't clear from the
specification. Are you saying that any implementation that wants to
propose a change is encouraged to pick a free version bit and use it?
Furthermore, my proposal addresses the danger of forward-incompatible
changes; a hard-fork can no longer occur as every implementation will
agree on the active the set of rules even if it has not implemented
them. This seems to be lacking in the version bits proposal.
Tomas
📝 Original message:> The specification itself looks like an inefficient and bloaty reinvention
> of
> version bits.
The actual assignment of version bits isn't clear from the
specification. Are you saying that any implementation that wants to
propose a change is encouraged to pick a free version bit and use it?
Furthermore, my proposal addresses the danger of forward-incompatible
changes; a hard-fork can no longer occur as every implementation will
agree on the active the set of rules even if it has not implemented
them. This seems to be lacking in the version bits proposal.
Tomas