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-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gronager@ceptacle.com>) id 1ROENJ-0001D8-E6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:03:57 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from backup-server.nordu.net ([193.10.252.66])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1ROENH-0007Eq-PI
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:03:57 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.15] (2508ds5-oebr.0.fullrate.dk [95.166.54.87])
(authenticated bits=0)
by backup-server.nordu.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pA9K3iBh016337
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Wed, 9 Nov 2011 21:03:47 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_Gr=F8nager?= <gronager@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3T7UZ-G9wsb_NDMBYpnnp9XBnjULmVVDgVXzEaUKn=5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 21:03:44 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200034A7-15F9-438F-A6B1-923A69348F55@ceptacle.com>
References: <BD206D96-C458-4DD7-92F6-32AE476C259A@ceptacle.com>
<CABsx9T3T7UZ-G9wsb_NDMBYpnnp9XBnjULmVVDgVXzEaUKn=5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1ROENH-0007Eq-PI
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] multisig,
op_eval and lock_time/sequence...
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, 09 Nov 2011 20:03:57 -0000
Hi Gavin / Alan,
Agree that we would also need to consider these "half" transaction =
valid. At least for the time being up to the lock_time, and one could =
have an extra constrain - that the lock_time should be within e.g. =
30minutes that would avoid the will-never-be-completed cases.
My main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that =
they might never be standard (I think a great number of clients will =
emerge - and this would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the =
p2p network it will be a seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, =
even across different clients. But I share your concern on the=20
I can, however, also understand your worries, and some other constraints =
should be introduced to ensure that not even short time spamming is =
possible...=20
/M
On 09/11/2011, at 20:13, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> 1. from client1 I issue a transaction containing one of the =
signatures, with a locktime e.g. 10 minutes from now and a sequence of =
0. This transaction is now posted to the p2p network.
>=20
> As Alan said, that won't work-- it will not be relayed across the
> network because it isn't a valid transaction until it has enough
> signatures.
>=20
>> Alternatively, the transactions would need to be sent between clients =
using another protocol...
>=20
> Formats and protocols for gathering signatures are in the TODO
> category-- Alan's BIP 10 is the next piece of the puzzle, maybe a
> standardized http/https RESTful API, or HTTP/JSON, or protocol buffers
> and raw sockets, or... something... solution (or solutions) built on
> top of that makes sense.
>=20
> I don't think partially-signed transactions belong on the main Bitcoin
> P2P network, mostly because I don't see any way of preventing somebody
> from endlessly spamming bogus, will-never-be-completed partial
> transactions just to be annoying.
>=20
> --=20
> --
> Gavin Andresen
|
