# Gavin Andresen
# 2011-10-06 23:06:47
# https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46538.msg560805#msg560805

@s{quotedtext}
@s{quotedtext}
 @p{brk}
He wouldn't have included NOP1 through NOP10, either. @p{par}

I file this under "Satoshi is a genius, part 9,432".  It gives a smooth upgrade path using the same blockchain if ECDSA or SHA256 start to get fragile. @p{par}

Attacking old clients by sending them coins with "will-never-be-satisfied-but-they-can't-tell-that" inputs @p{(bf}is@p{bf)} a concern@p{--} it is basically the Finney attack, but anybody will be able to try to pull it off and there is no time constraint. @p{par}

However, I think the benefits of being able to send to a truly secure address @p{(bf}FAR@p{bf)} outweigh the risks, I don't think it will be difficult to get people to upgrade to a newer, more secure client, and accepting 0- or 1-confirmation transactions is always a bad idea. @p{par}

I also think you're exaggerating the impact@p{--} OP_EVAL does not invalidate all of the security review that has been done so far, especially if the scripting language being EVAL'ed is unchanged from what we have today. @p{par}

(PS: the latest git-head QT bitcoin contains a working bitcoin URI handler) @p{brk}