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
|
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 <gronager@ceptacle.com>) id 1QwUX4-00084C-DF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:39:22 +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 1QwUX2-0007qQ-P2
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:39:22 +0000
Received: from [109.105.106.197] ([109.105.106.197]) (authenticated bits=0)
by backup-server.nordu.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7P7dCWa017862
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO)
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:39:13 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_Gr=F8nager?= <gronager@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T12R2dd=Ak7k4N+ZVAyLvJnx9oS0vVjwRa5T+UoCjbEMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:39:12 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D0D808D6-DBF2-47C0-A65A-22AE689C861F@ceptacle.com>
References: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
<201108241215.36847.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAS2fgQspsXy1Vw=fNr1FvsDRkEbP6dEcFLgUpK9DrBKXyiWNg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJ1JLtsxPG9v-Hwdb-pfgY6GU0Z4it+frFzw_tObVbNC6Xgdjw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTARAMqMu79Sp4XS4KxmUBWiXebpavHWr-EdLZbxS=sTw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJ1JLttqEnCjALadESmpntxSobD8Lj1zcXL4S7ghqdhyBrwVNw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T12R2dd=Ak7k4N+ZVAyLvJnx9oS0vVjwRa5T+UoCjbEMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT To: misformatted + percentage
X-Headers-End: 1QwUX2-0007qQ-P2
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: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:39:22 -0000
Hi Gavin (the list escaped the cc...),
I participated also in the hacakathon Sunday @ OnlyOneTV and I felt that =
this had a strong chance to diverge. So - yes - I agree - no =
"constitution" changes now. Further, I have thought later on on the =
analogy of a clerk and a safe.
WHen you enter the bank you hand over your money to the clerk (one key) =
- then after the clerks wallet has been filled over the day _he_ =
transfers the money to the safe (3 keys). My point is do we really need =
the customer to bypass the clerk and have 3 key addresses, or could we =
just leave it to the/a client to implement the multisign transaction =
after the money has been received - as a transfer to a safe? This would =
greatly simplify the problem and cover the vast majority of use cases. =
Not covered in this is huge single transfers where the intruder of a =
single key system finds it profitable to reveal their intrusion by =
grabbing the entire wallet.
Put in another way - do we *really* need to couple the securing of the =
wallet to creating a new address type ?
Cheers,
M
On 24/08/2011, at 19:57, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> This discussion is convincing me that scheduling a blockchain split is
> definitely the wrong idea at this time. We can revisit in N months,
> when we've got a roadmap and nice unit tests and a bunch of
> well-tested patches for fixing all of the things that aught to be
> fixed when we DO decide a blockchain split is necessary.
>=20
> There seems to be rough consensus that new, imperfect standard
> transactions are a good-enough short term solution.
>=20
> --=20
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>=20
> =
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
> EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K
> The only unified storage solution that offers unified management=20
> Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient.=20
> 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
Michael Gronager, PhD
Owner Ceptacle / NDGF Director, NORDUnet A/S
Jens Juels Gade 33
2100 Copenhagen E
Mobile: +45 31 62 14 01
E-mail: gronager@ceptacle.com
|
