Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RrPts-0002r2-AL for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:14:12 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-vx0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-vx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RrPtr-0000HS-LB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:14:12 +0000 Received: by vcbfk26 with SMTP id fk26so2911775vcb.34 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:14:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.116.10 with SMTP id k10mr6835712vcq.25.1327824846254; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:14:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.141.211 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:14:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F24D7C1.3070106@gmail.com> References: <1327812740.41242.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1327813841.99379.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4F24D7C1.3070106@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:14:06 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Alan Reiner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RrPtr-0000HS-LB Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Quote on BIP 16 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: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:14:12 -0000 On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Alan Reiner wrote: [snip] > But gmaxwell has expressed some compelling reasons why plain multi-sig > might be abused, which maybe suggests we don't want it ever considered > standard...? =C2=A0I guess I'm not really promoting one thing or another,= but Be careful not to conflate multisig _addresses_ and P2S with multisig output scripts in general. Of the issues I raised only the size of the potentially unprunable transaction outputs is an argument against multisig outputs which aren't getting packed up in addresses. Things like negotiated escrow arrangements can work okay either way. I think P2SH is still better for these for two reasons: Reasonable anti-spam behavior by network participant may make it hard to make large output scripts (see above), but this isn't an issue yet... and P2S(H) lets you use a separate escrow-maker tool for clients paying into escrow without any knowledge or support of escrow transactions in that client. This uncoupling is important both for general "feature velocity" as well as providing a uniform feature set across bitcoin services (e.g. you negotiate paying someone via escrow, you use a tool to make a mutually agreed escrow configuration, but your funds are in MTGOX=E2=80=94 no issue if P2SH is widely used).