rich1.0npub1kc0zulxt7j4a0ayhzhrz7jk84y7tm4026qcky7w97hlfkxxap24qnwjfw4https://nostr.ae/npub1kc0zulxt7j4a0ayhzhrz7jk84y7tm4026qcky7w97hlfkxxap24qnwjfw4njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-11-01 📝 Original message:My answer is simply "No", you don't have to maintain backward compatibility for non-standard tx. The same question applies to P2SH. Before the deployment of BIP16, one could have created a time-locked tx with one of the output was in the form of HASH160 <hash> EQUAL. The <hash>, however, is not a hash of a valid serialized script, so the output is now permanently frozen. It also applies to all the OP codes disabled by Satoshi: one could have created a time-locked tx with those now disabled OP codes. Same for BIP65 with the use of OP_NOP2. Following your logic, we can't make any softfork related to the script system. I think it is very important to make it clear that non-standard txs and non-standard scripts may become invalid in the future Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-10-28 10:06 寫到: > I'm hoping this fits under the moderation rule of "short-term changes > to the Bitcoin protcol" (I'm not exactly clear on what is meant by > "short-term"; it would be lovely if the moderators would start a > thread on bitcoin-discuss to clarify that): > > Should it be a requirement that ANY one-megabyte transaction that is > valid > under the existing rules also be valid under new rules? > > Pro: There could be expensive-to-validate transactions created and > given a > lockTime in the future stored somewhere safe. Their owners may have no > other way of spending the funds (they might have thrown away the > private > keys), and changing validation rules to be more strict so that those > transactions are invalid would be an unacceptable confiscation of > funds. > > Con: It is extremely unlikely there are any such large, timelocked > transactions, because the Core code has had a clear policy for years > that > 100,000-byte transactions are &quot;standard&quot; and are relayed and > mined, and > larger transactions are not. The requirement should be relaxed so that > only > valid 100,000-byte transaction under old consensus rules must be valid > under new consensus rules (larger transactions may or may not be > valid). > > I had to wrestle with that question when I implemented BIP101/Bitcoin > XT > when deciding on a limit for signature hashing (and decided the right > answer was to support any "non-attack"1MB transaction; see > https://bitcoincore.org/~gavin/ValidationSanity.pdf [1] for more > details). > > -- > > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://bitcoincore.org/~gavin/ValidationSanity.pdf > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev