Can we have a review of BIP 22 from all the main devs?
So everyone can give his own opinion.
So everyone can give his own opinion.
+1
edit: to the people treating this as a popularity contest please STFU
Topic: BIP 22? - page 3. (Read 4409 times)
+1
edit: to the people treating this as a popularity contest please STFU
Can we have a review of BIP 22 from all the main devs?
So everyone can give his own opinion.
So everyone can give his own opinion.
dooglus: yep you are right. Meant the opposite. Will fix when not logged in via mobile phone
I edited it for you. Replaced 'fail' with 'succeed'.
dooglus: yep you are right. Meant the opposite. Will fix when not logged in via mobile phone
Just to toss something on to the fire,
BIP 22 (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0022) is something I proposed as a potential answer to all of the prior BIPs on the multisig subject.
It is one that I proposed way back when.
BIP 22 (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0022) is something I proposed as a potential answer to all of the prior BIPs on the multisig subject.
It is one that I proposed way back when.
"Hey, you're right, I agree".
I like BIP 22 the best so far. I don't have a deep enough knowledge of the protocol to see what if anything is wrong with it but it feels a lot cleaner than either 16 or 17.
I was confused by this part:
Quote
A suggested implementation is to program the client such that the functionality is enabled only on Testnet, and on the main Bitcoin network once a certain level of voting consensus has been established into the block chain. So long as the functionality is disabled, OP_CHECKSIG shall fail so long as the expected parameters of one single signature and one single private key are provided.
Don't you want OP_CHECKSIG to succeed not fail when one single signature and one single private key are provided, even when the new functionality is disabled?
Just to toss something on to the fire,
BIP 22 (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0022) is something I proposed as a potential answer to all of the prior BIPs on the multisig subject.
It is one that I proposed way back when.
What this proposal does NOT come with, is an army of argument. I am fully willing to take a back seat, I have NO desire to derail Gavin's efforts, and despite my proposal, I am still fully behind BIP 16.
I believe it is a completely viable proposal that addresses all the major concerns from Turing completeness, ugliness, stealing bots, and new unpredictable use cases. But unless I see a swarm of people reading the proposal and saying "Hey, you're right, I agree" - the proposal should be seen as nothing more than entertainment.
I fully support Gavin and will not argue in favor of my proposal to the detriment of Gavin's current efforts.
BIP 22 (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0022) is something I proposed as a potential answer to all of the prior BIPs on the multisig subject.
It is one that I proposed way back when.
What this proposal does NOT come with, is an army of argument. I am fully willing to take a back seat, I have NO desire to derail Gavin's efforts, and despite my proposal, I am still fully behind BIP 16.
I believe it is a completely viable proposal that addresses all the major concerns from Turing completeness, ugliness, stealing bots, and new unpredictable use cases. But unless I see a swarm of people reading the proposal and saying "Hey, you're right, I agree" - the proposal should be seen as nothing more than entertainment.
I fully support Gavin and will not argue in favor of my proposal to the detriment of Gavin's current efforts.
I actually like BIP22. If we are going to have to do something considered hackish, I think I like having a subset of script codes inside the main set the best. I really don't like the serialization in BIP 16.
Just to toss something on to the fire,
BIP 22 (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0022) is something I proposed as a potential answer to all of the prior BIPs on the multisig subject.
It is one that I proposed way back when.
What this proposal does NOT come with, is an army of argument. I am fully willing to take a back seat, I have NO desire to derail Gavin's efforts, and despite my proposal, I am still fully behind BIP 16.
I believe it is a completely viable proposal that addresses all the major concerns from Turing completeness, ugliness, stealing bots, and new unpredictable use cases. But unless I see a swarm of people reading the proposal and saying "Hey, you're right, I agree" - the proposal should be seen as nothing more than entertainment.
I fully support Gavin and will not argue in favor of my proposal to the detriment of Gavin's current efforts.
BIP 22 (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0022) is something I proposed as a potential answer to all of the prior BIPs on the multisig subject.
It is one that I proposed way back when.
What this proposal does NOT come with, is an army of argument. I am fully willing to take a back seat, I have NO desire to derail Gavin's efforts, and despite my proposal, I am still fully behind BIP 16.
I believe it is a completely viable proposal that addresses all the major concerns from Turing completeness, ugliness, stealing bots, and new unpredictable use cases. But unless I see a swarm of people reading the proposal and saying "Hey, you're right, I agree" - the proposal should be seen as nothing more than entertainment.
I fully support Gavin and will not argue in favor of my proposal to the detriment of Gavin's current efforts.
Jump to: