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
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <decker.christian@gmail.com>) id 1QwIlq-0003Jp-Hj
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:05:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.210.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.210.42;
envelope-from=decker.christian@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pz0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-pz0-f42.google.com ([209.85.210.42])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QwIlp-0006DP-FY
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:05:50 +0000
Received: by pzk37 with SMTP id 37so1152328pzk.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.217.3 with SMTP id p3mr2713488wfg.166.1314212743448; Wed,
24 Aug 2011 12:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.54.163 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.54.163 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:05:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CALxbBHXAcRse9YE-evKNmDut684vjkUMHkbx+8E+aTNT5wMg5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd22f68bb8a7804ab44ff76
X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/)
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
(decker.christian[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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
1.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QwIlp-0006DP-FY
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 19:05:50 -0000
--000e0cd22f68bb8a7804ab44ff76
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sorry for keeping this short but I'm in holiday and reading/writing on my
phone is a pain.
On Aug 24, 2011 4:12 PM, "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 great way for companies to secure their assets.
>
> ByteCoin pointed to a research paper that gives a scheme for splitting
> a private key between two people, neither of which every knows the
> full key, but, together, both can DSA-sign transactions. That's very
> cool, but it involves high-end cutting-edge crypto like zero-knowledge
> proofs that I know very little about (are implementations available?
> are they patented? have they been thoroughly vetted/tested? etc).
> So I'm assuming that is NOT the fastest way to solving the problem.
>
> If anybody has some open-source, patent-free, thoroughly-tested code
> that already does DSA-key-splitting, speak up please.
Since. we have the possibility o add other signature schemes to the protocol
we could add an rsa-like scheme which allows m-out-of-n signatures. It works
by distributing shares of the key which are points on a curve having the
actual key as 0-value. It does not require special length for the key so if
ecdsa allows something similar there need not be anything changed.
>
> I've been trying to get consensus on low-level 'standard' transactions
> for transactions that must be signed by 2 or 3 keys; current draft
> proposal is here:
> https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f
> and discussion on the forums here:
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38928.0
> ... and there is a pull request that is relevant here:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/319
>
>
> 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?
Would be a first step.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
Just wanted to point you in that alternative direction as it would possibly
keep backward compatibility and allow multisignature.
Regards,
Chris
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--000e0cd22f68bb8a7804ab44ff76
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p>Sorry for keeping this short but I'm in holiday and reading/writing =
on my phone is a pain.</p>
<p>On Aug 24, 2011 4:12 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <<a href=3D"mailt=
o:gavinandresen@gmail.com">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><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>
It's a great way for companies to secure their assets.</p>
<p>><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>
> full key, but, together, both can DSA-sign transactions. =A0That's=
very<br>
> cool, but it involves high-end cutting-edge crypto like zero-knowledge=
<br>
> proofs that I know very little about (are implementations available?<b=
r>
> are they patented? =A0have they been thoroughly vetted/tested? =A0etc)=
.<br>
> So I'm assuming that is NOT the fastest way to solving the problem=
.<br>
><br>
> If anybody has some open-source, patent-free, thoroughly-tested code<b=
r>
> that already does DSA-key-splitting, speak up please.<br>
Since. we have the possibility o add other signature schemes to the protoco=
l we could add an rsa-like scheme which allows m-out-of-n signatures. It wo=
rks by distributing shares of the key which are points on a curve having th=
e actual key as 0-value. It does not require special length for the key so =
if ecdsa allows something similar there need not be anything changed.<br>
><br>
> I've been trying to get consensus on low-level 'standard' =
transactions<br>
> for transactions that must be signed by 2 or 3 keys; current draft<br>
> proposal is here:<br>
> =A0<a href=3D"https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f">https://gi=
st.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f</a><br>
> and discussion on the forums here:<br>
> =A0<a href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D38928.0">https=
://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D38928.0</a><br>
> ... and there is a pull request that is relevant here:<br>
> =A0<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/319">https://git=
hub.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/319</a><br>
><br>
><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?</p>
<p>Would be a first step. <br>
><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>
> My biggest worry is we'll say "Sure, it'll only take a co=
uple days to<br>
> agree on how to do it right" and six months from now there is sti=
ll no<br>
> consensus on exactly which digest function should be used, or whether<=
br>
> or not there should be a new opcode for arbitrary boolean expressions<=
br>
> involving keypairs. =A0And people's wallets continue to get lost o=
r<br>
> stolen.<br>
><br>
></p>
<p>Just wanted to point you in that alternative direction as it would possi=
bly keep backward compatibility and allow multisignature.</p>
<p>Regards,<br>
Chris<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> --<br>
> Gavin Andresen<br>
><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">http://p.s=
f.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-d=
evelopment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-develo=
pment">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a>=
<br>
</p>
--000e0cd22f68bb8a7804ab44ff76--
|
