[Bitcoin-development] multisig, op_eval and lock_time/sequence...

[Alan Reiner]

Fair enough.  I'm not expecting anyone to just suddenly adopt BIP 0010 
just because I published it to the wiki.  I put it there to get feedback 
on what it might be missing, and maybe we can converge on a good 
preliminary solution.  Then update it as we start playing with it and 
find more features/fixes to add to it.

Right now, I have actually implemented BIP 0010 in my own client 
software (which is still a few weeks from even having an alpha version, 
but nontheless I'm actually implementing it). I'm going to use TxDPs in 
offline-wallet transactions, which is a nearly identical process (it's 
just a 1-of-1 transaction).  As such, I will be interested to test with 
some other client developers, whether they can easily use the TxDPs I 
produce.

I assume it doesn't bother you if I leave it the way it is, with the 
acknowledgment that I know no one is adopting it yet (except for 
myself).  It's informational, until we get a couple different clients, 
or at least test setup to play with it.

-Alan




On 11/12/2011 12:16 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> BIPs are either "standards track" (affects everyone, represents 
> consensus), "informational" (ie basically just summarizing the authors 
> viewpoints on things) or "process".
>
> My point is you can't have a credible standards track BIP until 
> something has been implemented end to end. I don't think it's a good 
> plan to design these things in isolation. You'll end up with bizarre 
> user experiences because of technical decisions taken months earlier 
> that are now hard to reverse. A working end to end implementation 
> gives you the confidence to say, yes, this is how it should work, 
> because here's the demo and you can see it works very well and the 
> code is clean.
>
> If your BIP is informational then no problems, but I don't think 
> there's much point in informational BIPs to be honest - it's easier to 
> just write an email or forum post summarizing your views on things. If 
> you find it a useful framework to write your thoughts in that's OK, 
> but don't expect implementors to follow what's written there just 
> because it's a BIP. It carries no more weight than any other document 
> would.
>
>