Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X7rmG-0002TP-Vh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:55:41 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of mit.edu designates 18.9.25.14 as permitted sender) client-ip=18.9.25.14; envelope-from=jlrubin@mit.edu; helo=dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu; Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu ([18.9.25.14]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1X7rmE-0001hr-RN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:55:40 +0000 X-AuditID: 1209190e-f79946d000007db1-10-53c82a35d5d6 Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 6A.2E.32177.53A28C35; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id s6HJtWMs029882 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:55:33 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as jlrubin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id s6HJtU9w010957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:55:32 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id f8so3396846wiw.6 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:55:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.237.135 with SMTP id vc7mr49931124wjc.86.1405626930098; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:55:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.11.6 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:55:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jeremy Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:55:10 -0400 Message-ID: To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01494148daf6f004fe690533 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrPKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrWuqdSLY4P0dfouGCbwOjB67F3xm CmCM4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mr4tOAde8HjPsaK+Y/esjUw7i7tYuTkkBAwkdg2v40RwhaTuHBv PVsXIxeHkMBsJomZT58ygSSEBB4yShzbFwOR+Mok8eDeHUYIZzGjxOpJa1kg2kslOqf/BRvF KyAocXLmExaIbk+JKS86mEFsToFAiZ/HN7NCxBczSXx8oQhiswnISbw4eh6shkVAVeLl5lfs XYwcQHMCJI78tgYJCwtYS6xpWwI2UkRARaLr/VE2EJtZIE7icNciVgjbS+Lks0XMExiFZiG5 YhaS1CygqcwC6hLr5wlBhNUkbm+7yg5ha0ssW/iaeQEj6ypG2ZTcKt3cxMyc4tRk3eLkxLy8 1CJdY73czBK91JTSTYzgkJfk28H49aDSIUYBDkYlHt4H144HC7EmlhVX5h5ilORgUhLlDVQ+ ESzEl5SfUpmRWJwRX1Sak1p8iFGCg1lJhDf7PlA5b0piZVVqUT5MSpqDRUmc9621VbCQQHpi SWp2ampBahFMVoaDQ0mCd7oG0FDBotT01Iq0zJwShDQTByfIcB6g4WyaQDW8xQWJucWZ6RD5 U4z2HE2/jrYxccz7DyJ/3TwGIhedbmMSYsnLz0uVEud9CTJaAKQtozQPbjIsnb1iFAd6VJiX E2Q4DzAVws1+BbSWCWitdDnIT8UliQgpqQbGFfr3Of9MtVodmPWrZWny/IZkvcwjx9ce3JPp vUK1kPP/NbczFTWMenlcZ06Va3SYH06QVZt7c+pvhSPq2cs+GrzSfeysceZS0tY/813add0f v2pMvbTz6sxNQeZ6mRyXPgc+XTRj7pf5dauOrd+xRu3cM8+8+PnVi4+KN/zW+3zKNK34nD+z mhJLcUaioRZzUXEiAEJJPkhCAwAA 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1X7rmE-0001hr-RN Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Pay to MultiScript hash: 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: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:55:41 -0000 --089e01494148daf6f004fe690533 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 * the general cost of any network-wide change, versus P2SH which is already analyzed by devs, rolled out and working * the cost of updating everybody to relay this new transaction type, whereas P2SH Just Works already fair -- I think that there may be a big benefit realizable with this kind of system. * cost of increasing rate of UTXO growth versus P2SH This operation is similar in cost to multisig? Although I suppose there is the proposal to make all multisigs p2sh * the cost of P2SH output is predictable, versus less predictable outputs * "default public", versus P2SH's "default private" -- Can you elaborate on these? I think part of the problem is that there is low incentive for development/cataloging of these useful types of script because there isn't a horizon on getting them broadcastable by nodes other than testnet? Even with pay to script hash it is still currently relegated to a subset of script types iirc (I think I'm wrong on this one maybe (hopefully) -- if so, let's get writing!)? Hmm... another idea... what about doing a p2sh with a switch statement, ie: OP_HASH160