Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1327835984.12365.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1327812740.41242.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CAAS2fgRWJb+p=gM4eG_p4fr1+UsT-EO_YZOvkgh6SnktRRTyEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1327835941.47827.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<1327835984.12365.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:30:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2A8f64mh2-uSKwrjj9aEo0Z=jHyETQ5J9cka9JwyJqJw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d6456936891d04b7ab91f7
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fw: Quote on BIP 16
Precedence: list

--0016e6d6456936891d04b7ab91f7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com> wrote:

> (oops sorry greg- replied to you by mistake)
>
> That address he gives is 77 characters/bytes (same thing). What I'm asking
> is how can it be so small.


That's an alternative design for multisig addresses that would put a byte
giving the type of transaction and the 20-byte hashes of each of the public
keys involved. They would not have been redeemed using CHECKMULTISIG, but
would use DUP HASH160 CHECKSIG and the arithmetic or logical opcodes to
create the "m of n" condition.

Nobody really liked that solution because it means a new 'type' of bitcoin
address every time we want a new transaction type and long addresses.

Its only advantage is it didn't use CHECKMULTISIG, so there were no
problems with maximum-sigops-per-block.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--0016e6d6456936891d04b7ab91f7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Amir Taaki <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:zgenjix@yahoo.com">zgenjix@yahoo.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(oops sorry greg- replied to you by mistake)<br>
<br>
That address he gives is 77 characters/bytes (same thing). What I&#39;m ask=
ing is how can it be so small.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That&#39;s a=
n alternative design for multisig addresses that would put a byte giving th=
e type of transaction and the 20-byte hashes of each of the public keys inv=
olved. They would not have been redeemed using CHECKMULTISIG, but would use=
 DUP HASH160 CHECKSIG and the arithmetic or logical opcodes to create the &=
quot;m of n&quot; condition.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Nobody really liked that solution because it means a ne=
w &#39;type&#39; of bitcoin address every time we want a new transaction ty=
pe and long addresses.</div><div><br></div><div>Its only advantage is it di=
dn&#39;t use CHECKMULTISIG, so there were no problems with maximum-sigops-p=
er-block.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br><br>

--0016e6d6456936891d04b7ab91f7--