The Truth behind BIP 16 and 17 (important read) - page 5.

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

+1 thanks for explaining this dude, now i feel i can make a more educated voting

My view:

BIP | 16 | 17 |
20-byte short address | x | x |
unexpected behavior | x | - |
harder to manage | x | - |
max. number of SIGOPS | x | - |
uses an existing operation | - | x |
(to define a subscript)
uses a new operation | - | x |
(script’s actions)
need more than 55% sup. | x | x |
backward compatible | x | x |

Maged

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1015

Quote

A minor issue is that old clients will not propagate CHV payments. The old clients will accept blocks with CHV payments, but they will not pass them onto other nodes in the network. This is not a problem as transaction propagation speed is usually far quicker than confirmation speed (especially with 6 confirms or more).

Huh? Because hash power percentage is significantly different from the percentage of Bitcoin network nodes, this is a huge point. Until the relay nodes upgrade, it can take a well-connected node up to 24 hours to get a transaction to a miner that would accept it. At this point, BIP 16 has a huge advantage: although it will take that long to get the transaction to a BIP 16-based address, once it's there, it can be spent just as quickly as a normal address-based transaction. BIP-17 transactions have to wait on both ends. Hope you aren't buying anything with Bit-Pay... (they only wait 15 minutes for the transaction)

Ranvier

newbie

Activity: 23

Merit: 0

+1 @Phinnaeus

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

I propose a voluntary shutdown of exchanges during the implementation of such a major patch until stabiity is fully tested. A bank holiday, so to speak.

JusticeForYou

vip

Activity: 490

Merit: 271

+1

stcupp

full member

Activity: 209

Merit: 100

+1

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quote from: genjix on January 28, 2012, 11:54:08 PM

http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-truth-behind-bip-16-and-17/

Now I am not usually posting (spamming) Bitcoin Media stories on the forum, but I feel this is an important read. All the posts I've seen thus far are by partisan supporters of either scheme with no objectivity. They've also been highly technical in their language whereas here I've put mucho effort to make it readable and understandable for non-bitcoin developers.

Other developers disagree with giving this information away and feel like you as users should trust their judgement. I strongly disagree. I'd rather people have a say in such fundamental matters such as this, even if it makes the developer's lives harder because they have to explain their decisions thoroughly.

My worry is bitcoin someday becomes corrupted. Developers: see this extra scrutiny as an opportunity to build a culture of openness. It is not at all bad.

WoW! Good read, genjix, albeit I didn't understand half of it. But that's not important. What's important is that you've taken the time to present this in a different light. One which may open eyes as to what's at stack. I wish I was able to supply input into this important issue, but I can't. Not because of any side I like better than another, but because of my ignorance on this topic. Again, thank you, genjix, for taking the incentive in re-presenting this.

~Bruno~

genjix

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1076

http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-truth-behind-bip-16-and-17/

Now I am not usually posting (spamming) Bitcoin Media stories on the forum, but I feel this is an important read. All the posts I've seen thus far are by partisan supporters of either scheme with no objectivity. They've also been highly technical in their language whereas here I've put mucho effort to make it readable and understandable for non-bitcoin developers.

Other developers disagree with giving this information away and feel like you as users should trust their judgement. I strongly disagree. I'd rather people have a say in such fundamental matters such as this, even if it makes the developer's lives harder because they have to explain their decisions thoroughly.

My worry is bitcoin someday becomes corrupted. Developers: see this extra scrutiny as an opportunity to build a culture of openness. It is not at all bad.

EDIT:

http://bitcoinmedia.com/cathartic-progress/

Michael Marquardt (theymos) suggests compiling a list of everyone intimate with the bitcoin protocol to invite to a two-week email discussion. After those two-weeks a vote is taken. It will be the job of the champions of each idea (BIP 16, BIP 17 and no change) to win over the committee into supporting them. If an idea has necessary support, bitcoin clients will be programmed to apply the new rules for 3 months in the future.

Topic: The Truth behind BIP 16 and 17 (important read) - page 5. (Read 8549 times)