📅 Original date posted:2015-11-02
📝 Original message:On 02/11/15 14:33, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I like those guidelines, although I'm sure there may be lots of arguing
> over what fits under "protects the integrity of the network" or what
> constitutes "reasonable notice" (publish a BIP at least 30 days before
> rolling out a change? 60 days? a year?)
If Bitcoin were perfect. then it would be the case that any transaction
that was valid at the time it was signed would always remain valid until
spent regardless of any protocol changes which occurred in the interim.
Certainly, that property, if it was possible to achieve, would give
Bitcoin maximum possible utility compared to alternative properties.
There are cases in which that guarantee can be met, and there are some
pathological cases where it can not be met.
It's not possible to know if the pathological cases are actually a real
problem in practice, because the possible existence of unbroadcast
transactions which would trigger them is unknowable.
A possible lazy/optimistic strategy is to implement as much
non-pathological backward compatibility as possible, and treat unhandled
cases as outstanding bugs whose resolution is deferred unless and until
they are actually triggered.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0xEAD9E623.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 18442 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151102/79c74617/attachment-0001.bin>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151102/79c74617/attachment-0001.sig>;
Justus Ranvier [ARCHIVE] /
npub1k2…9qd6m
2023-06-07 17:44:03
in reply to nevent1q…fgd3
Author Public Key
npub1k2eekmevs6gg60df75qpjw4a2atmy89vx28c8zqq5jxy64tuzrws39qd6mPublished at
2023-06-07 17:44:03Event JSON
{
"id": "562a5fdf382e88e568f85ec1195c55f0ba4a82419e77ce62350b22dd10bd16c2",
"pubkey": "b2b39b6f2c86908d3da9f500193abd5757b21cac328f838800a48c4d557c10dd",
"created_at": 1686159843,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6fa3af2048f82399a81c9ef5aa9a6d88ff6b14b545801828e83f0dab2f1294d8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"81fb73a497fbd51fafe31cb9f2600473c3c0612bb12439b17e6f6427c788d1aa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-02\n📝 Original message:On 02/11/15 14:33, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I like those guidelines, although I'm sure there may be lots of arguing\n\u003e over what fits under \"protects the integrity of the network\" or what\n\u003e constitutes \"reasonable notice\" (publish a BIP at least 30 days before\n\u003e rolling out a change? 60 days? a year?)\n\nIf Bitcoin were perfect. then it would be the case that any transaction\nthat was valid at the time it was signed would always remain valid until\nspent regardless of any protocol changes which occurred in the interim.\n\nCertainly, that property, if it was possible to achieve, would give\nBitcoin maximum possible utility compared to alternative properties.\n\nThere are cases in which that guarantee can be met, and there are some\npathological cases where it can not be met.\n\nIt's not possible to know if the pathological cases are actually a real\nproblem in practice, because the possible existence of unbroadcast\ntransactions which would trigger them is unknowable.\n\nA possible lazy/optimistic strategy is to implement as much\nnon-pathological backward compatibility as possible, and treat unhandled\ncases as outstanding bugs whose resolution is deferred unless and until\nthey are actually triggered.\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: 0xEAD9E623.asc\nType: application/pgp-keys\nSize: 18442 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151102/79c74617/attachment-0001.bin\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 801 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151102/79c74617/attachment-0001.sig\u003e",
"sig": "ee2853969eba8969efa325270e67f7bc300650b61a8180b528290db6d04c5508fbcc7af02ef1fb97e1723692f286b4d1c68edcf3cdc6255e609e574ded29c086"
}