Author: Tom 2016-09-22 12:09:38
Published on: 2016-09-22T12:09:38+00:00
The email conversation between a group of individuals in the Bitcoin community regarding a proposed specification for a new format of transactions is discussed. One member, Gregory Maxwell, points out that the format document lacks specificity such as serialization of "integer," signaling of optional fields, and cardinality of inputs or outputs. Another member, Tom, argues that these specifications are included in an external formatting document. The topic of whether BIPs should be self-contained or rely on previous BIPs is debated. Luke-jr suggests that the proposal be submitted as a BIP, but has no preference either way. Christian Decker agrees to submit the proposal as a BIP if luke-jr thinks it's necessary. Maxwell later argues that the proposal only addresses third-party malleability, and signers can simply change the transaction and re-sign it. Decker disagrees, stating that creating a new document and re-signing it is not changing anything, but rather re-creating it, which the owner of the coin has every right to do. There is confusion about the dependencies of tokens inside a segment and the order of inputs and outputs. Finally, there is discussion about allowing miners to reject transactions with unknown fields, making the use of OP_NOPs unusable.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T20:02:42.384861+00:00