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
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1QZPQG-00059X-Cv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:32:56 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.83.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.83.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pv0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-pv0-f175.google.com ([74.125.83.175])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QZPQF-0003no-G0
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:32:56 +0000
Received: by pvf24 with SMTP id 24so793678pvf.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.49.15 with SMTP id w15mr173700wfw.328.1308756769411; Wed,
22 Jun 2011 08:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.153.7 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinUbJ6CKczHiyX2esMyRWgUrJ_9ASeOqZbRj+23GZgjcQ@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>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:32:49 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikP-VheXQyXikH6jvaqnWfH_cNjnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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 freemail (gavinandresen[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
0.0 RFC_ABUSE_POST Both abuse and postmaster missing on sender domain
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QZPQF-0003no-G0
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [PULL] Add scriptPubKey enforced
sendescrow and redeemescrow API calls
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, 22 Jun 2011 15:32:56 -0000
...
>> I think all of these could use a new type of bitcoin payment address;
>> it might make sense for THAT to be generic, maybe containing:
>> =A0version byte
>> =A0m
>> =A0n
>> =A0hash of xor of all n public keys
>> =A0checksum
>
> I don't understand what this is for. For triggering such a transaction
> via the UI, I think establishing a higher level protocol would be
> needed. It's a separate step.
You're right, it doesn't make sense. The use case I would like to work is:
I setup an escrow that requires m of n signatures to release funds,
securely getting public keys from the other n-1 parties.
Now we all need to fund the escrow. Or maybe other people can fund the
escrow (it just takes m of n of us to decide when/how/where to spend
the funds).
It would be spiffy to publish a new type of bitcoin address that is an
"m of n address", that anybody could pay into, but would require m of
n signatures to spend. Publishing a really really long address with
all n public keys would work.
It would be great if the "higher level protocol" for pay-to-escrow was
just get a bitcoin address via https (or other secure mechanism), like
we do now for pay-to-single-party. Where the person you're paying has
their own mechanisms for generating or fetching/authenticating the
public keys, and knows which bitcoin addresses they've published.
All of which makes me wonder if the straightforward "n PUBKEYS m
CHECKMULTISIG" transaction type is the right thing to do.
Following the pattern of our standard DUP HASH160 etc. transaction
type, maybe 2 of 2 and 2 of three should be:
2DUP ADD HASH160 ...hash(pubkey1+2)... EQUALVERIFY 2 2 ROLL CHECKMULTISIGVE=
RIFY
3DUP ADD ADD HASH160 ...hash(pubkey1+2+3)... EQUALVERIFY 2 3 ROLL
CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY
Spending those transactions would mean putting the m signatures and
the n public keys in the TxIn, but sending funds you'd only need the
hash of the sum of the public keys.
--=20
--
Gavin Andresen
http://clearcoin.com/
|
