Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1QZO6I-0001Zl-4F
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:08:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.210.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pz0-f47.google.com; 
Received: from mail-pz0-f47.google.com ([209.85.210.47])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1QZO6H-0001Y1-5A
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:08:14 +0000
Received: by pzk36 with SMTP id 36so685838pzk.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.142.4 with SMTP id p4mr144331wfd.43.1308751685873; Wed, 22
	Jun 2011 07:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.153.7 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=FTLnU-riNVYssnR9FLdcEeZX7gOS6Zdv1f_XDcJoSSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18440.87.106.138.84.1308200020.squirrel@lavabit.com>
	<BANLkTi=FTLnU-riNVYssnR9FLdcEeZX7gOS6Zdv1f_XDcJoSSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:08:05 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikkBoHBr8z6Uv7oGU_KuT0bvgx3HA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is freemail (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
	-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
	0.0 RFC_ABUSE_POST Both abuse and postmaster missing on sender domain
	0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QZO6H-0001Y1-5A
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [PULL] Add scriptPubKey enforced
 sendescrow and redeemescrow API calls
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: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:08:14 -0000

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> I think you can just use an output script of
> =A0 2 <K1> <K2> <K3> 3 CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY

I think it is time to start experimenting with MULTISIG transactions on tes=
tnet.

Mike:  Did Satoshi ever tell you what he was thinking for the best way
to implement MULTISIG transactions?
I'm wondering if hard-coding new standard script templates in
script.cpp Solver():

 vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_1 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_2 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
 vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_2 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_2 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
 vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_1 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_PUBKEY << OP_3 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
 vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_2 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_PUBKEY << OP_3 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
 vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_3 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_PUBKEY << OP_3 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);

... would be the right approach to support 1/2 of 2 and 1/2/3 of 3
signatures.  It'd be nice if there were generic
OP_N << OP_PUBKEY_N << OP_N  ... template matching opcodes, but there aren'=
t.

I'm also wondering if it makes sense to just support 2-of-2 (for
validate-on-multiple-devices) and 2-of-3 (for escrow) for now.

I think all of these could use a new type of bitcoin payment address;
it might make sense for THAT to be generic, maybe containing:
 version byte
 m
 n
 hash of xor of all n public keys
 checksum

I'm most interested in the 2-of-2 case; I think merchants and
exchanges need bitcoin deposit/payment addresses that they can make
secure by requiring a 2-step signature process for spending those
funds.

--=20
--
Gavin Andresen
http://clearcoin.com/