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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1RJ4yS-0007ev-QH
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:01:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RJ4yN-0005BN-Bp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:01:00 +0000
Received: by faas16 with SMTP id s16so2526668faa.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.75.15 with SMTP id w15mr28542068faj.9.1319641249055; Wed,
26 Oct 2011 08:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.24.229 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTx8gEztUt-UrDObMCQtfdzZc52fzS6c1q8mm+a-TjwjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP1ic4RXFzoqf66MGv=rJe3MgWxVi5nnk2VKkMc4VMCDyw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T3WKv3RLWT+Q6s7cCLzDL3sVRCWfmPiKcSp=_Re05m+zQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSYwUdiyY2XfHhWn+aN_6a72XRKs-8W7ibZM5t0tZ28rg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALf2ePy=3N1JQodP3s9PzH=Af1z-7qGdy_4=QW9-CJmaxYGz5Q@mail.gmail.com>
<7A50EE90-0FFC-45FB-A27F-786AEB23A8CA@ceptacle.com>
<CAAS2fgTx8gEztUt-UrDObMCQtfdzZc52fzS6c1q8mm+a-TjwjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:00:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3YnK9ogc3J39nO=Q+29daMTDhP2J_FGvpozTGAxD1z6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
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 commonly abused enduser mail provider
(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 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RJ4yN-0005BN-Bp
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Detecting OP_EVAL scriptPubKeys that are
to you
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, 26 Oct 2011 15:01:00 -0000
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Michael Gr=F8nager <gronager@ceptacle.com>=
wrote:
> I think it is a very important feature to be able to extract transaction =
to/from you only from your private keys.
Why? If somebody is sending me bitcoins, then they'll have to get
either an address or one or more public keys from me. OP_EVAL just
lets me give them a short address that represents an arbitrary number
of keys combined in an arbitrary way.
I agree with Gregory: it shouldn't matter if that address is
HASH(public key) or HASH(op_eval_script), the issues are the same (if
you lose or cannot re-create the key/script then you're in trouble).
Maybe I'm missing something; are you worried that blockexplorer won't
know that coins sent to HASH(op_eval_script) are actually a
complicated transaction until the coins are spent again? I'd consider
that a feature, not a bug, because only the people involved in the
transaction need to know the details until after the transaction is
complete.
Feel free to contact me about your 'tiered implementation for thin
clients' -- I don't think OP_EVAL will make that significantly harder.
I also agree with Alan: using OP_EVAL is not mandatory, I'm proposing
that CHECKMULTISIG becomes a standard transaction type.
--=20
--
Gavin Andresen
|
