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
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <rick.wesson@iidf.org>) id 1QwFnw-0008LE-8x
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:55:48 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-yx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QwFnv-0001Nb-1M
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:55:48 +0000
Received: by yxl11 with SMTP id 11so1198363yxl.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.43.60.133 with SMTP id ws5mr4107620icb.288.1314201341358; Wed,
24 Aug 2011 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.244.130 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgS+YLf3hP+VbMiQAZ8S7fNrno1g6pi33825MFWiTg7=4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgS+YLf3hP+VbMiQAZ8S7fNrno1g6pi33825MFWiTg7=4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:55:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJ1JLtuukHSPOamKFbexjRMC=Gs2pt=hbgbhthM7-eG9YQoBcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rick Wesson <rick@support-intelligence.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51a89701d72d504ab425831
X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QwFnv-0001Nb-1M
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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 15:55:48 -0000
--bcaec51a89701d72d504ab425831
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Gavin Andresen
> <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems to me the fastest path to very secure, very-hard-to-lose
> > bitcoin wallets is multi-signature transactions.
> >
> > To organize this discussion: first, does everybody agree?
>
> It's a good tool which we should have in our tool-belt.
>
> Though it's a bit of when you are a hammer all problems are nails.
> This issue can also be addressed by things like external private key
> protectors. But someone would have to build one.
>
> Someone might be more inclined to build such a thing if the software
> had good support for tracking public keys without private keys, and
> generating unsigned transactions for export to the device for signing.
>
> > ByteCoin pointed to a research paper that gives a scheme for splitting
> > a private key between two people, neither of which every knows the
> [snip]
> > So I'm assuming that is NOT the fastest way to solving the problem.
>
> Regardless, it might be useful to contact the authors.
>
> > 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?
>
> I agree.
>
> > The arguments against are that if the proposed standard transactions
> > are accepted, then the next step is to define a new kind of bitcoin
> > address that lets coins be deposited into a multisignature-protected
> > wallet.
> >
> > And those new as-yet-undefined bitcoin addresses will have to be 2 or
> > 3 times as big as current bitcoin addresses, and will be incompatible
> > with old clients.
> >
> > So, if we are going to have new releases that are incompatible with
> > old clients why not do things right in the first place, implement or
> > enable opcodes so the new bitcoin addresses can be small, and schedule
> > a block chain split for N months from now.
>
> One way of doing this would be to have an address which hashes an
> ordered concatenation of many addresses (perhaps plus a length
> argument). To redeem you provide the public keys which are signing,
> plus the addresses which aren't signing, and the receiver validates.
>
> If it can be done, then yes, I agree it would be worth forking the chain.
>
> This _feels_ like something which could and should be done with the
> existing (but disabled opcodes).
>
>
> It's not exclusive, however, with a long N-address address type for
> multisig destinations. We could support that _now_ and defer the
> 'compressed version' until after people have experience with this
> usage. The only cost would be supporting this address type forever,
> which isn't that bad.
>
> It's also important to note that incompatibility wouldn't be complete:
> The only limit is that old clients couldn't send funds to escrow
> addresses=97 which is an issue no matter how you encode the information.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K
> The only unified storage solution that offers unified management
> Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient.
> Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--bcaec51a89701d72d504ab425831
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Gregory=
Maxwell <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=
=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">
<div>On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Gavin Andresen<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandre=
sen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> It seems to me the fastest path to very secure, very-hard-to-lose<br>
> bitcoin wallets is multi-signature transactions.<br>
><br>
> To organize this discussion: first, does everybody agree?<br>
<br>
</div>It's a good tool which we should have in our tool-belt.<br>
<br>
Though it's a bit of when you are a hammer all problems are nails.<br>
This issue can also be addressed by things like external private key<br>
protectors. =A0But someone would have to build one.<br>
<br>
Someone might be more inclined to build such a thing if the software<br>
had good support for tracking public keys without private keys, and<br>
generating unsigned transactions for export to the device for signing.<br>
<div><br>
> ByteCoin pointed to a research paper that gives a scheme for splitting=
<br>
> a private key between two people, neither of which every knows the<br>
</div>[snip]<br>
<div>> So I'm assuming that is NOT the fastest way to solving the pr=
oblem.<br>
<br>
</div>Regardless, it might be useful to contact the authors.<br>
<div><br>
> I still think it is a good idea to enable a set of new 'standard&#=
39;<br>
> multisignature transactions, so they get relayed and included into<br>
> blocks. =A0I don't want to let "the perfect become the enemy =
of the<br>
> good" -- does anybody disagree?<br>
<br>
</div>I agree.<br>
<div><br>
> The arguments against are that if the proposed standard transactions<b=
r>
> are accepted, then the next step is to define a new kind of bitcoin<br=
>
> address that lets coins be deposited into a multisignature-protected<b=
r>
> wallet.<br>
><br>
> And those new as-yet-undefined bitcoin addresses will have to be 2 or<=
br>
> 3 times as big as current bitcoin addresses, and will be incompatible<=
br>
> with old clients.<br>
><br>
> So, if we are going to have new releases that are incompatible with<br=
>
> old clients why not do things right in the first place, implement or<b=
r>
> enable opcodes so the new bitcoin addresses can be small, and schedule=
<br>
> a block chain split for N months from now.<br>
<br>
</div>One way of doing this would be to have an address which hashes an<br>
ordered concatenation of many addresses (perhaps plus a length<br>
argument). To redeem you provide the public keys which are signing,<br>
plus the addresses which aren't signing, and the receiver validates.<br=
>
<br>
If it can be done, then yes, I agree it would be worth forking the chain.<b=
r>
<br>
This _feels_ like something which could and should be done with the<br>
existing (but disabled opcodes).<br>
<br>
<br>
It's not exclusive, however, with a long N-address address type for<br>
multisig destinations. =A0We could support that _now_ and defer the<br>
'compressed version' until after people have experience with this<b=
r>
usage. =A0The only cost would be supporting this address type forever,<br>
which isn't that bad.<br>
<br>
It's also important to note that incompatibility wouldn't be comple=
te:<br>
The only limit is that old clients couldn't send funds to escrow<br>
addresses=97 which is an issue no matter how you encode the information.<br=
>
<div><div></div><div><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K<br>
The only unified storage solution that offers unified management<br>
Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient.<br>
Guaranteed. <a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev" target=3D"_blan=
k">http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--bcaec51a89701d72d504ab425831--
|
