Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 21:28:39 +0200
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <20130714192838.GA26941@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <CAPaL=UW4zXui8Jh-qaFgmfhbzhRSHNyh7U5MSJo2bHoWmtoCkA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPaL=UW4zXui8Jh-qaFgmfhbzhRSHNyh7U5MSJo2bHoWmtoCkA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reward for P2SH IsStandard() patch.
Precedence: list

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:05:26PM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
> Long-term we should be using P2SH with an inner OP_CHECKSIG for most addresses
> as it's a 1 byte savings. Change addresses can have this done first, although
> bitcoinj support will help so that satoshidice and similar sites can pay to
> P2SH change. As for multisig's P2SH overhead for a 1-of-2 and 2-of-2 and
> 3-of-3, is 10%, 8.6% and 6.2% respectively, all pretty minor, especially if you
> assume the blocksize limit will be raised.

Small comment: the current implementation in the reference client uses a custom
script encoder for the UTXO database, which stores every (valid) send-to-pubkey
as 33 bytes and every send-to-pubkeyhash or send-to-scripthash as 21 bytes.
So for "standard" address payment, there is no storage impact of using P2SH
instead.

-- 
Pieter