Depends, without BIP62 a /lot/ of the even basic contracts that people want to use today (or wanted to use 18 months ago) are unusable, in fact, without BIP62, the atomic swaps suggested as important for sidechains are not secure. While redoing Bitcoin in a hardfork is nice, its a very long-term thing, so I'm not sure about making people wait for a large hardfork just to use payment channels.
Also, I echo the difficulty of writing consensus-compatible code and highly suggest anyone with money behind an implementation that is doing script verification in code that isnt Bitcoin Core rethink that decision. Matt On 11/06/14 21:58, Tamas Blummer wrote: > Thanks Peter, > > Having tried to write a bug-for-bug compatible code with Satoshi, I can only > second that it is rather close to impossible. > > The aim of BIP62 is noble, still it does not feel right for me to increase > the complexity of the code with e.g. soft-fork-ready versioning. > Freezing the consensus code, studying its bugs appears more appropriate to > me. What we learn could define a hard fork or a better > chain we migrate to as discussed by blockstream. > > Tamas Blummer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
