1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <theymos@mm.st>) id 1QwGrH-00048D-AU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:03:19 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of mm.st
designates 66.111.4.27 as permitted sender)
client-ip=66.111.4.27; envelope-from=theymos@mm.st;
helo=out3.smtp.messagingengine.com;
Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QwGrG-0001k9-Gf
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:03:19 +0000
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46])
by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32AA20963
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:03:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web3.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.213])
by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:03:12 -0400
Received: by web3.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99)
id A135CBE1204; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:03:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1314205392.21042.140258133279217@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: 1fb9LQ2h8PDbqExLkNYqvgs1plZRaqHg4cpVnzDLO5Q2 1314205392
From: "theymos" <theymos@mm.st>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:03:12 -0500
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
(theymos[at]mm.st)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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
0.0 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL To: misformatted and free email service
X-Headers-End: 1QwGrG-0001k9-Gf
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:03:19 -0000
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:12 -0400, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> To organize this discussion: first, does everybody agree?
Yes. The feature will be very good.
> 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?
Please do enable any transactions that seem to be a possible solution.
Even if this client doesn't ever implement any of them, alternative
clients can try them.
> 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.
I agree that something should be done with what we have now. It *will*
take months to properly figure out how to add chain-forking features for
this. If we want to consider all of the unrelated feature proposals, it
might take years of discussion...
However, as I said in the forum thread, I think it would be better for
people using this protection to receive at a normal address and then
create new transactions at their end. Then no one has to handle huge
addresses, and the sender will never have to pay abnormal fees or deal
with incompatibilities. There will be a short period of time when the
recipient's money is unprotected, but I think this is worth it. A better
scheme can be made later after chain-forking features are figured out.
|
