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
|
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 <bgroff@lavabit.com>) id 1Qx7ov-0002iC-27
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 27 Aug 2011 01:36:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of lavabit.com
designates 72.249.41.33 as permitted sender)
client-ip=72.249.41.33; envelope-from=bgroff@lavabit.com;
helo=karen.lavabit.com;
Received: from karen.lavabit.com ([72.249.41.33])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Qx7ou-0001Dc-Cu for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 27 Aug 2011 01:36:25 +0000
Received: from a.earth.lavabit.com (a.earth.lavabit.com [192.168.111.10])
by karen.lavabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE8811BA76;
Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:36:19 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from lavabit.com (77.109.139.87)
by lavabit.com with ESMTP id Y6WU2LB2X01C;
Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:36:19 -0500
Received: from 77.109.139.87 (SquirrelMail authenticated user bgroff)
by lavabit.com with HTTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:36:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <41177.77.109.139.87.1314408979.squirrel@lavabit.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0vqbFwTJL2gj0N3FWH7KkEN+0FjRWR9_XqbEuxNMM6Aw@mail.gmail.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>
<D0D808D6-DBF2-47C0-A65A-22AE689C861F@ceptacle.com>
<CABsx9T0vqbFwTJL2gj0N3FWH7KkEN+0FjRWR9_XqbEuxNMM6Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:36:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: bgroff@lavabit.com
To: "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
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
-0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Qx7ou-0001Dc-Cu
Cc: 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: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 01:36:25 -0000
"Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wanted to talk about it now so there is rough consensus on what to
> put on the road map, and to get as many smart brains looking at the
> proposal and making it as good as possible. Current proposal is at:
> https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f
>
> I have two issues with it:
>
> 1) groffer reports that there's a bug in CHECKMULTISIG (pops too many
> arguments off the stack), so perhaps we should avoid using it at all.
> Fixing the bug would change its behavior, and is not an option because
> that would cause a blockchain split. We absolutely need unit tests and
> better documentation for how CHECKMULTISIG behaves (perhaps it is
> working as intended, and Satoshi just messed up the description of
> what it does in the comment).
>
> 2) How often will the 1-of-3 and 3-of-3 cases be used? I included them
> just for completeness, but perhaps they should be dropped for now so
> there is less code to write and test. I just don't imagine there are
> many cases where you have exactly three parties and 1-of-3 or 3-of-3
> are required to spend.
Here are some additional use cases:
* Long term lock funds, requiring signatures from 2 officers of a company
to disburse (2 of n for n between 3 and 20)
* Short term lock funds, with 2-factor auth to disburse and an additional
2 of n backup in case one of the factors is lost (2-of-2 OR 2-of-n)
* "Escrow" with the the two parties having to agree or one of two backup
observers helping in case of disagreement (2-of-2 OR 2-of-3 OR 2-of-3)
* An options contract where the outcome is triggered by a key being
broadcast: (Ks AND K1) OR (Kr AND K2) - s gets control of funds if K1 is
broadcast, r gets control if K2 is broadcast.
|
