Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.175; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qy0-f175.google.com; 
Message-ID: <4F24D7C1.3070106@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:23:13 -0500
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Thunderbird/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <1327812740.41242.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<1327813841.99379.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1327813841.99379.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Quote on BIP 16
Precedence: list

It certainly wouldn't hurt if there was a way to use OP_MULTICHECKSIG 
with hash160 values instead... I doubt that's workable, though.

At the moment, I feel that the copy&paste size problem is much smaller 
than the risk we take implementing such a huge change to the network.  I 
almost feel like, we should have multi-sig in place, thoroughly tested 
and available, as something to fall back on if something goes wrong with 
BIP 13/16/17 after implementation.  After all, I've been promoting the 
idea of considering the "cost" to fixing an erroneous/insecure 
implementation, as consideration for the proposals at hand.

But gmaxwell has expressed some compelling reasons why plain multi-sig 
might be abused, which maybe suggests we don't want it ever considered 
standard...?  I guess I'm not really promoting one thing or another, but 
I feel like copy&pasting is not a big deal (after all, it exists to 
moving large amounts of data around).  Then of course, I use 
home-shift-end all the time, and regular users may not be so adept at 
copying long strings.

-Alan



On 01/29/2012 12:10 AM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> 2 compressed pubkeys
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Amir Taaki<zgenjix@yahoo.com>
> To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:52 AM
> Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Quote on BIP 16
>
> Gavin said:
> "Part of the controversy is whether really long bitcoin addresses would work-- would it be OK if the new bitcoin addresses were really long and looked something like this:  57HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBE7HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBiTE7vVhaPaBE7Hr
> (or possibly even longer)
>
> I've argued no: past 70 or so characters it becomes a lot harder to copy and paste, a lot harder to scan an address with your eyes to see if you're paying who you think you're paying, harder to create a readable QR code, harder to upgrade website or database code that deals with bitcoin addresses, etc. There is rough consensus that very-long addresses are not workable."
>
> How could you have a 70 byte long address without a P2SH scheme? Is this a mistake?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development