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
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 699424A2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:55:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AA34E9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:55:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:36105 helo=server47.web-hosting.com)
by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <jl2012@xbt.hk>) id 1ZI8Xq-0026lL-Q0
for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:55:46 -0400
Received: from 119.246.245.241 ([119.246.245.241]) by
server47.web-hosting.com (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015
04:55:46 +0000
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:55:46 +0000
Message-ID: <20150723045546.Horde.KiM4VIQqwnFJ3lwdFrO-2w3@server47.web-hosting.com>
From: jl2012@xbt.hk
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CAJ+8mEOPRQ-euqL62nB8_7xTaZbjCmFwKHXUrD9y=bNr56m-rg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OWgdDiFNgKd8D_pPyV6ZdPdUjdFwL7eMQzjAL_xfn+ZUg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T21i_onZcj=zcY=rvbxQtVUh=cW-TYxYNqwxcFxA5hKvQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T21i_onZcj=zcY=rvbxQtVUh=cW-TYxYNqwxcFxA5hKvQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.1.4)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id:
jl2012@xbt.hk
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Short Term Use Addresses for Scalability
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:55:48 -0000
Quoting Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> It also requires most clients to be updated to support the new address
>> system.
>
>
> That's the killer: introducing Yet Another Type of Bitcoin Address takes a
> very long time and requires a lot of people to change their code. At least,
> that was the lesson learned when we introduced P2SH addresses.
>
> I think it's just not worth it for a very modest space savings (10 bytes,
> when scriptSig+scriptPubKey is about 120 bytes), especially with the
> extreme decrease in security (going from 2^160 to 2^80 to brute-force).
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
I think it would only save ~5% with all overhead (value, sequence,
locktime, version, etc.) counted
A better way is to introduce shorter ECDSA keys, which will save a lot
of space for public key and signature. It is safe as long as the
output value is much lower than the cost of attack.
If this happens, I think it will be part of the OP_MAST which will
require a new address type anyway.
|
