On Friday, 23 September 2016 13:42:36 CEST Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I have to disagree. That is not malleability. Creating a new document > > and re- signing it is not changing anything. Its re-creating. > > Something that the owner of the coin has every right to do. > Same thing I was arguing back then, however Luke pointed out that > malleability just refers to the possibility of modifying a transaction > after the fact.
I am not a fan of redefining dictionary words. I'll stick to the universally excepted one, thanks. > Nope, that is exactly the kind of dependency I was talking > about. Instead of nesting a construct like the current transactions > do, you rely on the order of tokens to imply that they belong > together. > if we > add new fields that a non-upgraded node doesn't know about and it > rejects transactions containing it, we'll have a hard-fork. It should > probably not reject transactions with unknown fields if the > transaction is included in a block. This is addressed here; https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0134.mediawiki#future-extensibility _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev