Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1RIeTI-0000uH-T7
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:43:04 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wy0-f175.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1RIeTD-0006NC-6q
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:43:04 +0000
Received: by wyg19 with SMTP id 19so445981wyg.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.163.202 with SMTP id a52mr10229180wel.91.1319539373077;
	Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.10.148 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <44190.134.106.52.172.1319535941.squirrel@webmail.uni-osnabrueck.de>
References: <44190.134.106.52.172.1319535941.squirrel@webmail.uni-osnabrueck.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:42:53 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: XSob3ICsXIbnn1fsJMYkrzUF13s
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2WzXQO8L8fjMqOzs+TsuGYvQK9L3kKX_BCqAdhNapW_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jan Vornberger <jan@uos.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
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
	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
	0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RIeTD-0006NC-6q
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Determine input addresses of a transaction
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: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:43:05 -0000

> Interesting suggestion! So if I understand correctly, <greensig> would be
> the signature generated from signing the transaction with the key of a
> green address?

Sure. Or just "a key". It wouldn't have to be an actual key used in
the block chain.

> Sounds good - I guess I never thought in this direction, as I always
> assumed doing anything 'non-standard' with the scripting language would
> create a number of knock-on problems.

It won't break the IsStandard checks, if that's what you mean. You can
put any data you like into a scriptSig. In practice only data is
useful, there's no purpose in having an actual script there (or at
least, I wasn't able to find one yet).

> 1) Get something working reasonable fast to detect current green address
> style transactions. It's fine if it is a little bit of a hack, as long as
> it's safe, since I don't expect it to be merged with mainline anyway at
> this point.

You could easily change the bitcoin code to detect such transactions -
just look for scriptSigs that have 3 items instead of two, where the
3rd item is the right size to be a signature.

> Criticism ranging from 'unnecessary, as
> 0-confirmation transactions are fairly safe today' to 'encourages too much
> centralization and therefore evil'

Heh, if that's a reference to my feedback, I definitely wouldn't
describe such a feature as "evil", that's rather strong :-)