Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTx8gEztUt-UrDObMCQtfdzZc52fzS6c1q8mm+a-TjwjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP1ic4RXFzoqf66MGv=rJe3MgWxVi5nnk2VKkMc4VMCDyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T3WKv3RLWT+Q6s7cCLzDL3sVRCWfmPiKcSp=_Re05m+zQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSYwUdiyY2XfHhWn+aN_6a72XRKs-8W7ibZM5t0tZ28rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALf2ePy=3N1JQodP3s9PzH=Af1z-7qGdy_4=QW9-CJmaxYGz5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<7A50EE90-0FFC-45FB-A27F-786AEB23A8CA@ceptacle.com>
	<CAAS2fgTx8gEztUt-UrDObMCQtfdzZc52fzS6c1q8mm+a-TjwjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:00:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3YnK9ogc3J39nO=Q+29daMTDhP2J_FGvpozTGAxD1z6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Detecting OP_EVAL scriptPubKeys that are
	to you
Precedence: list

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Michael Gr=F8nager <gronager@ceptacle.com>=
 wrote:
> I think it is a very important feature to be able to extract transaction =
to/from you only from your private keys.

Why? If somebody is sending me bitcoins, then they'll have to get
either an address or one or more public keys from me. OP_EVAL just
lets me give them a short address that represents an arbitrary number
of keys combined in an arbitrary way.

I agree with Gregory: it shouldn't matter if that address is
HASH(public key) or HASH(op_eval_script), the issues are the same (if
you lose or cannot re-create the key/script then you're in trouble).

Maybe I'm missing something; are you worried that blockexplorer won't
know that coins sent to HASH(op_eval_script) are actually a
complicated transaction until the coins are spent again?  I'd consider
that a feature, not a bug, because only the people involved in the
transaction need to know the details until after the transaction is
complete.

Feel free to contact me about your 'tiered implementation for thin
clients' -- I don't think OP_EVAL will make that significantly harder.

I also agree with Alan: using OP_EVAL is not mandatory, I'm proposing
that CHECKMULTISIG becomes a standard transaction type.

--=20
--
Gavin Andresen