Author: Peter Todd 2015-01-23 17:49:59
Published on: 2015-01-23T17:49:59+00:00
On January 23, 2015, Slush raised concerns about the "soft-fork" alternative, stating that senders to Trezor need to use some special outputs. In response, a member of the Bitcoin community explained that P2SH addresses can be used for this purpose. The conversation then turned to the political aspect of hard-forks and whether any other pending projects were waiting for them. It was noted that hard-forks are not necessarily hard because of political issues, but rather because they are risky and require everyone to upgrade at once. In regards to signature validation, a lot of third-party code would need to be updated to avoid fraud. Additionally, there was mention of a soft-fork proposal that involved using OP_CODESEPARATOR and a CHECKSIG2 to sign fees and other transactions. The message was signed with a PGP signature for security purposes.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T15:58:04.494152+00:00