Author: Andy Parkins 2012-01-31 17:11:56
Published on: 2012-01-31T17:11:56+00:00
On January 31, 2012, Luke-Jr wrote that there were no remaining tangible objections to BIP 17, although Gavin had concerns over a theoretical risk. Luke-Jr was willing to withdraw BIP 17 if there was a better solution. Both BIP 16 and 17 were backward compatible enough that people could continue to use the old clients with each other, and an upgrade was only required to send to or create/receive on the new 3...-form addresses. It was possible to rewrite the practical implications of both BIP 16 and 17 in the format suggested by Andy, which was backward compatible. Only version2 transactions for version2 addresses would need to be made, and the join between version1 and version2 was not a problem since the version1 source could be detected, and the handling of the version2 transaction altered as appropriate.
Updated on: 2023-06-05T02:25:16.898078+00:00