Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-vw0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikP-VheXQyXikH6jvaqnWfH_cNjnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18440.87.106.138.84.1308200020.squirrel@lavabit.com>
	<BANLkTi=FTLnU-riNVYssnR9FLdcEeZX7gOS6Zdv1f_XDcJoSSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikkBoHBr8z6Uv7oGU_KuT0bvgx3HA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinUbJ6CKczHiyX2esMyRWgUrJ_9ASeOqZbRj+23GZgjcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikP-VheXQyXikH6jvaqnWfH_cNjnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:02:05 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTikThwkSBjmxqkVTqdht1dM6=SVO+MFu_-NB0BaNLpy5yg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [PULL] Add scriptPubKey enforced
 sendescrow and redeemescrow API calls
Precedence: list

> All of which makes me wonder if the straightforward "n PUBKEYS m
> CHECKMULTISIG" transaction type is the right thing to do.

As far as I understand the only reason for hashing the public key is
for typing convenience. Otherwise we'd all just pass raw public keys
around and use the simple form seen in the direct-to-ip case.

But as there'd need to be a higher level protocol on top of the
multipay transactions in order to verify who the other parties are,
there's no need for typing convenience. It'd all be done
automatically.