Author: Tom 2016-09-22 18:47:50
Published on: 2016-09-22T18:47:50+00:00
In an email exchange dated September 22, 2016, Peter Todd and an unknown recipient discussed the idea of using a generic concept to enable flexibility in transactions. The suggestion was to use a naming convention for each field, which would allow new fields to be added or optional fields to be omitted from individual transactions. However, it was noted that this approach would not be applicable to required fields since they are not optional. The discussion then turned to the complexity of the code required for this extensible format, which was deemed to be slightly more complex than the current format. However, the focus was on the argument for flexibility rather than simplicity. The recipient requested that the proposal include examples of how hypothetical upgrades in the future would take advantage of this approach.In addition, the recipient suggested that if compatibility with existing software is to be broken, a format that extends the merkle tree down into the transaction inputs and outputs should be used instead. The recipient provided references to previous arguments made in favor of this approach, but Todd requested a URL to better understand the value of this idea. Finally, Todd thanked the recipient for the email and requested more time to discuss the concept further.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T20:02:01.046147+00:00