diff options
| author | Maciej Trebacz <maciej@bitalo.com> | 2013-08-23 08:26:51 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2013-08-23 06:27:01 +0000 |
| commit | 37b0242661917ace4cf0c83a1c390aad5f4e5669 (patch) | |
| tree | 36cc85318bc609da8c7a2392a86c3cf115a73f88 | |
| parent | 15ab35eac6110febd212f769140f4296ef88b41b (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-37b0242661917ace4cf0c83a1c390aad5f4e5669.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-37b0242661917ace4cf0c83a1c390aad5f4e5669.zip | |
[Bitcoin-development] Way to tell that transaction was issued by a specific person/company
| -rw-r--r-- | 04/779e395f6112f7750bbd475b2a2c262838fee8 | 145 |
1 files changed, 145 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/04/779e395f6112f7750bbd475b2a2c262838fee8 b/04/779e395f6112f7750bbd475b2a2c262838fee8 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..426d37486 --- /dev/null +++ b/04/779e395f6112f7750bbd475b2a2c262838fee8 @@ -0,0 +1,145 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <maciej@bitalo.com>) id 1VCkpp-0005Xp-1T + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 23 Aug 2013 06:27:01 +0000 +Received-SPF: fail (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitalo.com + does not designate 74.125.82.199 as permitted sender) + client-ip=74.125.82.199; envelope-from=maciej@bitalo.com; + helo=mail-we0-f199.google.com; +Received: from mail-we0-f199.google.com ([74.125.82.199]) + by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1VCkpm-0006iA-Nw + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 23 Aug 2013 06:27:00 +0000 +Received: by mail-we0-f199.google.com with SMTP id t60so208119wes.2 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Thu, 22 Aug 2013 23:26:51 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=google.com; s=20120113; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to + :content-type; + bh=ruG++WnAd7yGBrixwhIiygtnUbP++FDMpvNZIwxvPsI=; + b=FMQLXIMDUXNHzI03/aL2MJ1Rn0eJ7YjQxYgjNedMEscb5fadtsJDdr9OpQhpBc1F8d + 6FUbchNQK05aXJievtfjNjQbXMWHQflWLYrurE2qbBLg19IgaUG5zRt1hdDJv8I/DyGX + CvQARFws1GYAIBexeadNGEo48KPwOuHpHvyGg311dcp4v0qlsZ53p1hsZ+1CI+2krXWk + RBMxu72uxF/W/6K9gcpWj6ictceJNeOZYmm4V0Z6aAmTgm3iNqN46Jt31OutPMrsODmG + sgTjVha8IILqR+yCpWDmxeMDox/15umXx1+W1QlxnXVVyU2Y1eP4T20SiWTeX3Aqykf9 + cMhw== +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBfcPjhF6IKZ0OG/gHvwo2st6lhuQjvEx6YTjAb2k2Bxo3a6I5YzG38Z68dpSmLbU3jgTf +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.180.73.103 with SMTP id k7mr904794wiv.24.1377239211401; Thu, + 22 Aug 2013 23:26:51 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.217.2.17 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 23:26:51 -0700 (PDT) +X-Originating-IP: [83.30.116.231] +Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 08:26:51 +0200 +Message-ID: <CAD=_8RR=vm0ivpdNg7=bnX_bQ7CC8oZnVi5iWXvbgeBD8W4Ctg@mail.gmail.com> +From: Maciej Trebacz <maciej@bitalo.com> +To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c815ef7754704e4977dbd +X-Spam-Score: 5.9 (+++++) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + 4.0 SPF_CHECK_FAIL SPF reports sender host as NOT permitted to send + mails from + 0.9 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail) + 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message +X-Headers-End: 1VCkpm-0006iA-Nw +Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Way to tell that transaction was issued by a + specific person/company +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, 23 Aug 2013 06:27:01 -0000 + +--f46d043c815ef7754704e4977dbd +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 + +As far as I know current Bitcoin protocol doesn't let you to include any +arbitrary data with the transactions (as it would become non-standard and +clients would not relay it). So if you have multiple addresses you can't +sign them with a single private key and include that signature in the +transaction so other party can verify it against your public key. This +could become very handy though - a reputable wallet service could issue +transactions that require zero confirmations from the other party, +because with the added signature they know that the transaction is from +this reputable service and they trust that this service won't try to double +spend. I'm thinking of something like Mt.Gox's "green address", but baked +into protocol (Mt.Gox does this by sending your funds to some known by the +others Bitcoin address and then relaying them to the final destination). + +Do you think it's possible/feasible to add a feature like this to the +current protocol without forking the chain? This could be as simple as +adding support for following scripts: + +<data block> OP_DROP OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECK +<data block> OP_DROP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUAL + +The <data block> should not be longer than 34 bytes (or more, depending if +we want to have some room for future use cases). This is all that needs to +be changed in the Bitcoin client. Now for actually using the feature a +further definition of <data block> is required: + +22 AC 20 <32 byte signature> + +22 is data block length and "AC 20" is just a sub-opcode that can be either +defined by the protocol (in this case I'm reusing OP_CHECKSIG's opcode but +that's not required since this is all part of data block) or just agreed +upon between people that want to use this feature. + +It's possible that the above could be achieved in some simpler way using +other opcodes or mechanisms present in Bitcoin protocol that I'm not aware +of. Either way, I'd like to hear your opinions whether a feature like this +should be considered and added. + +--f46d043c815ef7754704e4977dbd +Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr">As far as I know current Bitcoin protocol doesn't let = +you to include any arbitrary data with the transactions (as it would become= + non-standard and clients would not relay it). So if you have multiple addr= +esses you can't sign them with a single private key and include that si= +gnature in the transaction so other party can verify it against your public= + key. This could become very handy though - a reputable wallet service coul= +d issue transactions that require zero confirmations from the other party, = +because=A0with the added signature they know that the transaction is from t= +his reputable service and they trust that this service won't try to dou= +ble spend. I'm thinking of something like Mt.Gox's "green addr= +ess", but baked into protocol (Mt.Gox does this by sending your funds = +to some known by the others Bitcoin address and then relaying them to the f= +inal destination).<div> +<br></div><div>Do you think it's possible/feasible to add a feature lik= +e this to the current protocol without forking the chain? This could be as = +simple as adding support for following scripts:</div><div><br></div><div> +<data block> OP_DROP OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVER= +IFY OP_CHECK<br></div><div><data block> OP_DROP OP_HASH160=A0<pubK= +eyHash> OP_EQUAL</div><div><br></div><div>The <data block> should = +not be longer than 34 bytes (or more, depending if we want to have some roo= +m for future use cases). This is all that needs to be changed in the Bitcoi= +n client. Now for actually using the feature a further definition of <da= +ta block> is required:</div> +<div><br></div><div>22 AC 20 <32 byte signature></div><div><br></div>= +<div>22 is data block length and "AC 20" is just a sub-opcode tha= +t can be either defined by the protocol (in this case I'm reusing OP_CH= +ECKSIG's opcode but that's not required since this is all part of d= +ata block) or just agreed upon between people that want to use this feature= +.</div> +<div><br></div><div>It's possible that the above could be achieved in s= +ome simpler way using other opcodes or mechanisms present in Bitcoin protoc= +ol that I'm not aware of. Either way, I'd like to hear your opinion= +s whether a feature like this should be considered and added.</div> +</div> + +--f46d043c815ef7754704e4977dbd-- + + |