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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1RrVlp-0006Dn-Av
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:30:17 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RrVlo-0000C3-JE
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:30:17 +0000
Received: by werc1 with SMTP id c1so3473349wer.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 06:30:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.137.210 with SMTP id y60mr5837694wei.14.1327847410403;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 06:30:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.112.199 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 06:30:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1327835984.12365.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1327812740.41242.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CAAS2fgRWJb+p=gM4eG_p4fr1+UsT-EO_YZOvkgh6SnktRRTyEw@mail.gmail.com>
<1327835941.47827.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<1327835984.12365.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:30:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2A8f64mh2-uSKwrjj9aEo0Z=jHyETQ5J9cka9JwyJqJw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d6456936891d04b7ab91f7
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
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
X-Headers-End: 1RrVlo-0000C3-JE
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fw: Quote on BIP 16
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: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:30:17 -0000
--0016e6d6456936891d04b7ab91f7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (oops sorry greg- replied to you by mistake)
>
> That address he gives is 77 characters/bytes (same thing). What I'm asking
> is how can it be so small.
That's an alternative design for multisig addresses that would put a byte
giving the type of transaction and the 20-byte hashes of each of the public
keys involved. They would not have been redeemed using CHECKMULTISIG, but
would use DUP HASH160 CHECKSIG and the arithmetic or logical opcodes to
create the "m of n" condition.
Nobody really liked that solution because it means a new 'type' of bitcoin
address every time we want a new transaction type and long addresses.
Its only advantage is it didn't use CHECKMULTISIG, so there were no
problems with maximum-sigops-per-block.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--0016e6d6456936891d04b7ab91f7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Amir Taaki <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:zgenjix@yahoo.com">zgenjix@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(oops sorry greg- replied to you by mistake)<br>
<br>
That address he gives is 77 characters/bytes (same thing). What I'm ask=
ing is how can it be so small.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's a=
n alternative design for multisig addresses that would put a byte giving th=
e type of transaction and the 20-byte hashes of each of the public keys inv=
olved. They would not have been redeemed using CHECKMULTISIG, but would use=
DUP HASH160 CHECKSIG and the arithmetic or logical opcodes to create the &=
quot;m of n" condition.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Nobody really liked that solution because it means a ne=
w 'type' of bitcoin address every time we want a new transaction ty=
pe and long addresses.</div><div><br></div><div>Its only advantage is it di=
dn't use CHECKMULTISIG, so there were no problems with maximum-sigops-p=
er-block.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br><br>
--0016e6d6456936891d04b7ab91f7--
|
