Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of lavabit.com
	designates 72.249.41.33 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=72.249.41.33; envelope-from=bgroff@lavabit.com;
	helo=karen.lavabit.com; 
Message-ID: <41177.77.109.139.87.1314408979.squirrel@lavabit.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0vqbFwTJL2gj0N3FWH7KkEN+0FjRWR9_XqbEuxNMM6Aw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201108241215.36847.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAS2fgQspsXy1Vw=fNr1FvsDRkEbP6dEcFLgUpK9DrBKXyiWNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ1JLtsxPG9v-Hwdb-pfgY6GU0Z4it+frFzw_tObVbNC6Xgdjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgTARAMqMu79Sp4XS4KxmUBWiXebpavHWr-EdLZbxS=sTw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ1JLttqEnCjALadESmpntxSobD8Lj1zcXL4S7ghqdhyBrwVNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T12R2dd=Ak7k4N+ZVAyLvJnx9oS0vVjwRa5T+UoCjbEMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0D808D6-DBF2-47C0-A65A-22AE689C861F@ceptacle.com>
	<CABsx9T0vqbFwTJL2gj0N3FWH7KkEN+0FjRWR9_XqbEuxNMM6Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:36:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: bgroff@lavabit.com
To: "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to
 schedule a blockchain split?
Precedence: list

"Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wanted to talk about it now so there is rough consensus on what to
> put on the road map, and to get as many smart brains looking at the
> proposal and making it as good as possible.  Current proposal is at:
>   https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f
>
> I have two issues with it:
>
> 1) groffer reports that there's a bug in CHECKMULTISIG (pops too many
> arguments off the stack), so perhaps we should avoid using it at all.
> Fixing the bug would change its behavior, and is not an option because
> that would cause a blockchain split. We absolutely need unit tests and
> better documentation for how CHECKMULTISIG behaves (perhaps it is
> working as intended, and Satoshi just messed up the description of
> what it does in the comment).
>
> 2) How often will the 1-of-3 and 3-of-3 cases be used? I included them
> just for completeness, but perhaps they should be dropped for now so
> there is less code to write and test.  I just don't imagine there are
> many cases where you have exactly three parties and 1-of-3 or 3-of-3
> are required to spend.


Here are some additional use cases:

* Long term lock funds, requiring signatures from 2 officers of a company
to disburse (2 of n for n between 3 and 20)

* Short term lock funds, with 2-factor auth to disburse and an additional
2 of n backup in case one of the factors is lost (2-of-2 OR 2-of-n)

* "Escrow" with the the two parties having to agree or one of two backup
observers helping in case of disagreement (2-of-2 OR 2-of-3 OR 2-of-3)

* An options contract where the outcome is triggered by a key being
broadcast: (Ks AND K1) OR (Kr AND K2) - s gets control of funds if K1 is
broadcast, r gets control if K2 is broadcast.