Author: Gregory Maxwell 2012-01-31 17:45:14
Published on: 2012-01-31T17:45:14+00:00
In an email conversation on January 31, 2012, Andy Parkins expressed nervousness about the ongoing debate surrounding BIP16/BIP17. Another participant in the conversation explained that the differences between these two options were technically obscure and generally agreed upon by technically-minded individuals. They also referred to Luke's opinion tracker page, which reflects the views of core developers and other informed parties. In response to a question about whether there might be a better solution that satisfied everyone, the same participant noted that it was unrealistic to expect absolute consensus on the "best" way forward. They went on to explain that many different options had been considered over time, but the BIPs represented the "final" surviving ideas. The participant also clarified that BIP16 was the consensus path forward that emerged from earlier discussions, while BIP12 was deemed too computationally powerful. Though only Luke objected to BIP16 at the time, he had since developed an alternative that had gained some support. However, this did not constitute a material schism. When asked whether a client upgrade would be required for the proposed change, the participant stated that while old nodes would continue to validate transactions, updating would be necessary to make use of new functionality. They emphasized that Bitcoin was a zero-trust system and that breaking changes like those proposed could not be taken lightly.Lastly, the participant acknowledged that if the system were ever to be scrapped completely, something akin to the proposed changes might be implemented. However, they regarded such changes as unlikely given the amount of development resources required and the difficulty of getting people to trust them.
Updated on: 2023-05-18T23:04:35.175951+00:00