On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgar...@bitpay.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: >> On another topic, I'm skeptical of the choice of nVersion==3 - we'll >> likely end up doing more block.nVersion increases in the future, and >> there's no reason to think they'll have anything to do with >> transactions. No sense creating a rule that'll be so quickly broken. > > Moderately agreed. > > Earlier in BIP 62 lifetime, I had commented on ambiguity that arose > from bumping tx version simply because we were bumping block version. > The ambiguity was corrected, but IMO remains symptomatic of potential > problems and confusion down the road. > > Though I ACK'd the change, my general preference remains to disconnect > TX and block version.
I prefer to see consensus rules as one set of rules (especially because they only really apply to blocks - the part for lone transactions is just policy), and thus have a single numbering. Still, I have no strong opinion about it and have now heard 3 'moderately against' comments. I'm fine with using nVersion==2 for transactions. -- Pieter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
