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 ) id 1QwFJt-0006oX-T7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:24:45 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-yw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1QwFJs-0007AD-MM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:24:45 +0000 Received: by ywa12 with SMTP id 12so1160174ywa.34 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:24:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.154.3 with SMTP id o3mr1991662icw.221.1314199027443; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.244.130 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:17:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:17:07 -0700 Message-ID: From: Rick Wesson To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e83f031e65a04ab41cead X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1QwFJs-0007AD-MM Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:24:46 -0000 --90e6ba6e83f031e65a04ab41cead Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 wow, with all the feature requests and bug fixing that needs to be done you want to go off on a tangent. Vision my friend, once centered on robust architecture, may then be directed on a hard left turn. Lets get a feature road map done, bug fix and testing framework set up ... or fork this puppy to folks that can execute the above. -rick On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > It seems to me the fastest path to very secure, very-hard-to-lose > bitcoin wallets is multi-signature transactions. > > To organize this discussion: first, does everybody agree? > > ByteCoin pointed to a research paper that gives a scheme for splitting > a private key between two people, neither of which every knows the > full key, but, together, both can DSA-sign transactions. That's very > cool, but it involves high-end cutting-edge crypto like zero-knowledge > proofs that I know very little about (are implementations available? > are they patented? have they been thoroughly vetted/tested? etc). > So I'm assuming that is NOT the fastest way to solving the problem. > > If anybody has some open-source, patent-free, thoroughly-tested code > that already does DSA-key-splitting, speak up please. > > > I've been trying to get consensus on low-level 'standard' transactions > for transactions that must be signed by 2 or 3 keys; current draft > proposal is here: > https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f > and discussion on the forums here: > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38928.0 > ... and there is a pull request that is relevant here: > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/319 > > > I still think it is a good idea to enable a set of new 'standard' > multisignature transactions, so they get relayed and included into > blocks. I don't want to let "the perfect become the enemy of the > good" -- does anybody disagree? > > The arguments against are that if the proposed standard transactions > are accepted, then the next step is to define a new kind of bitcoin > address that lets coins be deposited into a multisignature-protected > wallet. > > And those new as-yet-undefined bitcoin addresses will have to be 2 or > 3 times as big as current bitcoin addresses, and will be incompatible > with old clients. > > So, if we are going to have new releases that are incompatible with > old clients why not do things right in the first place, implement or > enable opcodes so the new bitcoin addresses can be small, and schedule > a block chain split for N months from now. > > My biggest worry is we'll say "Sure, it'll only take a couple days to > agree on how to do it right" and six months from now there is still no > consensus on exactly which digest function should be used, or whether > or not there should be a new opcode for arbitrary boolean expressions > involving keypairs. And people's wallets continue to get lost or > stolen. > > > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K > The only unified storage solution that offers unified management > Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient. > Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --90e6ba6e83f031e65a04ab41cead Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable wow, with all the feature requests and bug fixing that needs to be done you= want to go off on a tangent.

Vision my friend, once cen= tered on robust=A0architecture, may then be directed on a hard left turn.= =A0

Lets get a feature road map done, bug fix and testing framew= ork set up=A0

... or fork this puppy to folks that= can execute the above.

-rick

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems to me the fastest path to very secure, very-hard-to-lose
bitcoin wallets is multi-signature transactions.

To organize this discussion: first, does everybody agree?

ByteCoin pointed to a research paper that gives a scheme for splitting
a private key between two people, neither of which every knows the
full key, but, together, both can DSA-sign transactions. =A0That's very=
cool, but it involves high-end cutting-edge crypto like zero-knowledge
proofs that I know very little about (are implementations available?
are they patented? =A0have they been thoroughly vetted/tested? =A0etc).
So I'm assuming that is NOT the fastest way to solving the problem.

If anybody has some open-source, patent-free, thoroughly-tested code
that already does DSA-key-splitting, speak up please.


I've been trying to get consensus on low-level 'standard' trans= actions
for transactions that must be signed by 2 or 3 keys; current draft
proposal is here:
=A0https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f
and discussion on the forums here:
=A0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D38928.0
... and there is a pull request that is relevant here:
=A0https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/319


I still think it is a good idea to enable a set of new 'standard' multisignature transactions, so they get relayed and included into
blocks. =A0I don't want to let "the perfect become the enemy of th= e
good" -- does anybody disagree?

The arguments against are that if the proposed standard transactions
are accepted, then the next step is to define a new kind of bitcoin
address that lets coins be deposited into a multisignature-protected
wallet.

And those new as-yet-undefined bitcoin addresses will have to be 2 or
3 times as big as current bitcoin addresses, and will be incompatible
with old clients.

So, if we are going to have new releases that are incompatible with
old clients why not do things right in the first place, implement or
enable opcodes so the new bitcoin addresses can be small, and schedule
a block chain split for N months from now.

My biggest worry is we'll say "Sure, it'll only take a couple = days to
agree on how to do it right" and six months from now there is still no=
consensus on exactly which digest function should be used, or whether
or not there should be a new opcode for arbitrary boolean expressions
involving keypairs. =A0And people's wallets continue to get lost or
stolen.



--
--
Gavin Andresen

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K
The only unified storage solution that offers unified management
Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient.
Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--90e6ba6e83f031e65a04ab41cead--