📅 Original date posted:2012-01-31
📝 Original message:On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:50:58 AM Andy Parkins wrote:
> Gulp. Am a little nervous about wading into this swamp. However, it seems
> to me that the debate has veered into the personal and away from the
> technical. Surely if there are objections to both suggestions, that
> another solution might be better? The answer doesn't have to be A or B,
> if the answer C turns out to be acceptable.
I'm not aware of any remaining *tangible* objections to BIP 17 at this point
(Gavin seems concerned over a theoretical risk-that-nobody-has-thought-of),
but if there's a better solution, I'm perfectly fine Withdrawing BIP 17 to
support it.
> If the change is going to be a big one anyway and will require a client
> upgrade why not...
Both BIP 16 and 17 are backward compatible enough that people can continue to
use the old clients with each other. An upgrade is only required to send to
(or create/receive on) the new 3...-form addresses. That being said, it's
quite possible to rewrite the practical implications of both BIP 16 and 17 in
the format you seem to be suggesting. Doing so would even get rid of one of
the major objections to BIP 16 (its inconsistency).
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 03:02:23
in reply to nevent1q…3q80
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 03:02:23Event JSON
{
"id": "f9ac959ace19b243217a5c6b7e23f5bf129901c50b0a3e572f3da63e31af2ba1",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686106943,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"22b31c7914344e2558f61c1ca11e9ce319306fcef8c5a07a7de90e59af569931",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9130561bca100f886272c00ef6dbd17393716a47a6045f2f17ec1ee1a2eab7fa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"99bec497728c848e65549d1a5257d08de97621edcb4b77073269a45dac708d59"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-01-31\n📝 Original message:On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:50:58 AM Andy Parkins wrote:\n\u003e Gulp. Am a little nervous about wading into this swamp. However, it seems\n\u003e to me that the debate has veered into the personal and away from the\n\u003e technical. Surely if there are objections to both suggestions, that\n\u003e another solution might be better? The answer doesn't have to be A or B,\n\u003e if the answer C turns out to be acceptable.\n\nI'm not aware of any remaining *tangible* objections to BIP 17 at this point \n(Gavin seems concerned over a theoretical risk-that-nobody-has-thought-of), \nbut if there's a better solution, I'm perfectly fine Withdrawing BIP 17 to \nsupport it.\n\n\u003e If the change is going to be a big one anyway and will require a client\n\u003e upgrade why not...\n\nBoth BIP 16 and 17 are backward compatible enough that people can continue to \nuse the old clients with each other. An upgrade is only required to send to \n(or create/receive on) the new 3...-form addresses. That being said, it's \nquite possible to rewrite the practical implications of both BIP 16 and 17 in \nthe format you seem to be suggesting. Doing so would even get rid of one of \nthe major objections to BIP 16 (its inconsistency).",
"sig": "a0772e642edb9e1c59e62356b655b7b3530bfb0fd86101863e570bf4c6c6a743d7c0eeacb68dcb2ebeb3659da80bd5f93e8063c3c53b79363e1ec85405a4f4a2"
}