Re: Whither the 0x40 timestamp signature?

[Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

* Ian Grigg wrote:
> Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>> I do have an application for this type of signature without providing
>> the full meaning of notary (0x50) signatures.
>
> When you say "I do have ..." are you saying that this
> is in existence, or that you are proposing this as a
> potential future use of 0x40 sigs?

Only a potential future use. I'd only show a real world need for such things.

> some obscure sense, I think it's better to leave old
> uses to die, and allocate new codes to new purposes,
> even if close.

Ok. Remove it.

> Thirdly (as I mooted in a prior post) I think we should
> be seriously considering putting the RFC process into
> feature freeze.

Ack.