Author: Gavin Andresen 2015-05-13 13:41:44
Published on: 2015-05-13T13:41:44+00:00
In an email exchange, Gavin Andresen expresses his thoughts on the need for more details before a proposal can receive a BIP number. He suggests that there may be multiple BIPs required to address various aspects of the proposal, including overall goals, changes to opcodes, and hard fork rollout plans. He also recommends implementing proposals before submitting them for consideration, as doing so can reveal previously unconsidered issues. Additionally, he believes that BIPs should be descriptive rather than proscriptive. Finally, he approves of the idea of moving to a normalized txid, but suggests bundling this change with a larger change to OP_CHECKSIG. In another email, Tier Nolan proposes a modification to the proposal that would eliminate the need for a second index by requiring a SPV proof of the spending transaction to be included with legacy transactions. This would allow clients to verify that the normalized txid matched the legacy id. The hard fork would be followed by a transitional period, during which both txids could be used. Afterward, legacy transactions would have to have the SPV proof added.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T20:57:14.727175+00:00