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 ) id 1WTuod-0005BL-7e for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 15:04:59 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.41; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f41.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.219.41]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WTuoc-0002SH-1b for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 15:04:59 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id j17so7399778oag.14 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.233.201 with SMTP id ty9mr12312696obc.29.1396105492701; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.231 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4113697.13qtlTpVUA@crushinator> References: <1878927.J1e3zZmtIP@crushinator> <1894130.91FUH3Vu6n@crushinator> <4113697.13qtlTpVUA@crushinator> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 16:04:52 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: aH3uBNqWqS1Xtz5itSb3oNp3uYs Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Matt Whitlock Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1c508f62e5604f5c0239b X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WTuoc-0002SH-1b Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret Sharing of Bitcoin private keys X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 15:04:59 -0000 --001a11c1c508f62e5604f5c0239b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Nobody is exactly thrilled by IsStandard, but it's not a deal-killer. If you have a use for a new type of script it can be added, and people do upgrade: http://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/chart/?days=30 As you can see the 0.9 rollout is going OK. If a new script type had been made standard for 0.9 like OP_RETURN was, I'm guessing it'll only be another month or so and it'll be quite usable. On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote: > On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 10:19 am, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Matt Whitlock > wrote: > > > Multisig does not allow for the topology I described. Say the board > has seven directors, meaning the majority threshold is four. This means the > organization needs the consent of six individuals in order to sign a > transaction: the president, the CFO, and any four of the board members. A > 6-of-9 multisig would not accomplish the same policy, as then any six board > members could successfully sign a transaction without the consent of the > president or CFO. Of course the multi-signature scheme could be expanded to > allow for hierarchical threshold topologies, or Shamir's Secret Sharing can > be used to distribute keys at the second level (and further, if desired). > > > > Disagree with "does not allow" Review bitcoin's script language. > > > > Bitcoin script can handle the use case you describe. Add conditionals > > to the bitcoin script, OP_IF etc. You can do 'multisig AND multisig' > > type boolean logic entirely in script, and be far more flexible than a > > single CHECKMULTISIG affords. > > Depends on your definition of "can." Bitcoin's scripting language is > awesome, but it's mostly useless due to the requirement that scripts match > one of a select few "standard" templates in order to be allowed to > propagate across the network and be mined into blocks. I really hate > IsStandard and wish it would die. > --001a11c1c508f62e5604f5c0239b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Nobody is exactly thrilled by IsStandard, but it's not= a deal-killer. If you have a use for a new type of script it can be added,= and people do upgrade:


As you can see the 0.9 rollout is going OK. If a = new script type had been made standard for 0.9 like OP_RETURN was, I'm = guessing it'll only be another month or so and it'll be quite usabl= e.


On Sat,= Mar 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>= wrote:
On S= aturday, 29 March 2014, at 10:19 am, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> > Multisig does not allow for the topology I described. Say the boa= rd has seven directors, meaning the majority threshold is four. This means = the organization needs the consent of six individuals in order to sign a tr= ansaction: the president, the CFO, and any four of the board members. A 6-o= f-9 multisig would not accomplish the same policy, as then any six board me= mbers could successfully sign a transaction without the consent of the pres= ident or CFO. Of course the multi-signature scheme could be expanded to all= ow for hierarchical threshold topologies, or Shamir's Secret Sharing ca= n be used to distribute keys at the second level (and further, if desired).=
>
> Disagree with "does not allow" =C2=A0Review bitcoin's sc= ript language.
>
> Bitcoin script can handle the use case you describe. =C2=A0Add conditi= onals
> to the bitcoin script, OP_IF etc. =C2=A0You can do 'multisig AND m= ultisig'
> type boolean logic entirely in script, and be far more flexible than a=
> single CHECKMULTISIG affords.

Depends on your definition of "can." Bitcoin's sc= ripting language is awesome, but it's mostly useless due to the require= ment that scripts match one of a select few "standard" templates = in order to be allowed to propagate across the network and be mined into bl= ocks. I really hate IsStandard and wish it would die.

--001a11c1c508f62e5604f5c0239b--