Note that even your carve-outs for OP_NOP is not sufficient here - if you were using nSequence to tag different pre-signed transactions into categories (roughly as you suggest people may want to do with extra sighash bits) then their transactions could very easily have become un-realistically-spendable. The whole point of soft forks is that we invalidate otherwise-unused bits of the protocol. This does not seem inconsistent with the proposal here.
> On Mar 9, 2019, at 13:29, Russell O'Connor <rocon...@blockstream.io> wrote: > Bitcoin has *never* made a soft-fork, since the time of Satoishi, that > invalidated transactions that send secured inputs to secured outputs > (excluding uses of OP_NOP1-OP_NOP10). _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
