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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1X7dgR-0000B6-1d
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:52:43 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.43; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f43.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1X7dgP-0001Gt-Ah
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:52:43 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l18so1830603wgh.14
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=FfudQ5POpcWISivSyIKB06gSkLYQk/CjvbYAkT/P9Mk=;
b=mT4/0FQAEiX8RLc9EQfHPwWId2UNi9k5qWSFGQa8kkxyOLyVl0jt3JN6ZHY4bZynky
aTreynRimOlOnpA/sfqZxm0ucrhMitP8vWyUVE9t2mxAuUWBjfEWG9b7ajYPrG0KFraY
OCJRerm4Yr74auxZ11b3XmzDP1Al4qnYdkpj023BIhU/j/2lNbet3GKbZ2ToiOIfgxzw
kr3P06tv8fDrNn3dmO8oxliGh6n/pJkDLgQYVUmg1PzhcXKIuf9rp61hPB+8o//3HqVE
Zh17kp1IefHuueNsY/ENfu8/mYrNp+JhaXkxBYz9obU1SR7G9m/LFj3oDiIYE7onisKV
YL9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkJtD81j6VAHoieehVHB08EJf8lVUZQ2231EanC8C5KPV9uMdS9Cl6G1t/mj6nHHaJSLML3
X-Received: by 10.181.11.232 with SMTP id el8mr19210276wid.57.1405572755111;
Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.5.67 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhgyCOdJwnXw+YchptfXjtshDi_VVEGOjR-hG2qV=u6m2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5xwhgyCOdJwnXw+YchptfXjtshDi_VVEGOjR-hG2qV=u6m2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 00:52:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0OFEDQp5umz=6_LUx5oJJmiKJoF90W7nvJPv0CtML+ftA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 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
X-Headers-End: 1X7dgP-0001Gt-Ah
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Pay to MultiScript hash:
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, 17 Jul 2014 04:52:43 -0000
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu> wrote:
> Right now, this could be expressed multiple ways (ie, using an op_dup if
> then else chain) , but all would incur additional costs in terms of
> complicated control flows. Instead, I would propose:
Can you quantify "additional costs in terms of complicated control flows"?
> There is an implication in terms of increased utxo pool bloat, but also an
> implication in terms of increased txn complexity (each 20 byte hash allows
> for a 500 byte script, only one of the 500 byte scripts has to be
> permanently stored on blockchain).
When considering these costs, using a normal P2SH output + a script
with OP_IF and friends seems more straightforward?
Doing boolean logic with multisig groups is quite possible, e.g.
"group AND group", "group OR (group AND group)" etc. Definitely a
valid use case. I discussed how to do this on IRC with gmaxwell
several months ago. I call it "multi-multisig" for lack of a better
name.
|
