On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wui...@gmail.com> wrote: > * Add it to the softfork now, and be done with it.
Initially I was of the opinion that we couldn't do that, because soft-forks which hit transactions many nodes would relay+mine creates a forking risk... but with the realization that imbalanced R/S plus checksig-not would only be work with 0.10rc/git changed my mind. Unlike two years ago miners no longer appear to be racing the bleeding edge, and it's never show up in a release. Obviously the next RC would also make those non-standard. And then we'll have some non-trivial amount of time before the soft-fork activates for whatever stragglers there are on 0.10 prerelease code to update. The deployment of the soft-fork rules themselves will already drive people to update. In terms of being robust to implementation differences, not permitting overlarge R/S is obviously prudent. So I think we should just go ahead with R/S length upper bounds as both IsStandard and in STRICTDER. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
