diff options
| author | Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> | 2011-08-26 13:09:37 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2011-08-26 11:09:44 +0000 |
| commit | 15f93de983f93c31c99193c55eb05c7e1f2c03cb (patch) | |
| tree | 645eb71f4a25cbe2b3bf87219d2e744a9e220c29 | |
| parent | 759149925c901ebb0eeb83943fb1046f9dafb27d (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-15f93de983f93c31c99193c55eb05c7e1f2c03cb.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-15f93de983f93c31c99193c55eb05c7e1f2c03cb.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to schedule a blockchain split?
| -rw-r--r-- | dc/b5e9a25e29e888bfa332a3e1251c29aeedd19d | 80 |
1 files changed, 80 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/dc/b5e9a25e29e888bfa332a3e1251c29aeedd19d b/dc/b5e9a25e29e888bfa332a3e1251c29aeedd19d new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bc0109187 --- /dev/null +++ b/dc/b5e9a25e29e888bfa332a3e1251c29aeedd19d @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1QwuIC-00056o-7t + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:09:44 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.212.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; + helo=mail-vw0-f47.google.com; +Received: from mail-vw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1QwuIB-0005zB-Et + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:09:44 +0000 +Received: by vwe42 with SMTP id 42so3868880vwe.34 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Fri, 26 Aug 2011 04:09:38 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.52.22.237 with SMTP id h13mr1001820vdf.228.1314356977998; Fri, + 26 Aug 2011 04:09:37 -0700 (PDT) +Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com +Received: by 10.52.164.165 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 04:09:37 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <20110825201453.GA28296@ulyssis.org> +References: <20110825201453.GA28296@ulyssis.org> +Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:09:37 +0200 +X-Google-Sender-Auth: k8LId0Q9IOfQAYzdOvf8hmaJ1qY +Message-ID: <CANEZrP0OyKSqEZj3UF0ArKFePuTi_HyM2_OZA8zXO5Uf+bAZwA@mail.gmail.com> +From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> +To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider + (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature + 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-Headers-End: 1QwuIB-0005zB-Et +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to + schedule a blockchain split? +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:09:44 -0000 + +> On the github pull request I posted a general scheme that can convert arbitrary +> expressions over signature-checks (given in RPL notation) to bitcoin scripts. +> Maybe we can define an address type that encodes an expression in RPL form (which +> should be more compact and more easily parseable)? + +What are the use cases for this? + +From a mobile apps perspective, it doesn't make much sense to have +arbitrary scripts in a user-facing address. The software has to be +able to present some kind of reasonable user interface given an +address, it has to explain what is going to happen to the users money +and so on. From this perspective, doing pattern matching against some +encoded script template is annoying and inefficient. It'd be better to +just define another type of URI for each kind of transaction you wish +to support. This is doubly true because often to do the more +interesting contracts, you need out of band protocols, so the +"address" would probably specify some information that's not in the +final output script, like a rendezvous point. + + |