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 1Qx7ov-0002iC-27 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 01:36:25 +0000 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; Received: from karen.lavabit.com ([72.249.41.33]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Qx7ou-0001Dc-Cu for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 01:36:25 +0000 Received: from a.earth.lavabit.com (a.earth.lavabit.com [192.168.111.10]) by karen.lavabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE8811BA76; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:36:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from lavabit.com (77.109.139.87) by lavabit.com with ESMTP id Y6WU2LB2X01C; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:36:19 -0500 Received: from 77.109.139.87 (SquirrelMail authenticated user bgroff) by lavabit.com with HTTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:36:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41177.77.109.139.87.1314408979.squirrel@lavabit.com> In-Reply-To: References: <201108241215.36847.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:36:19 -0400 (EDT) From: bgroff@lavabit.com To: "Gavin Andresen" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) 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 -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Qx7ou-0001Dc-Cu Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to schedule a blockchain split? 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, 27 Aug 2011 01:36:25 -0000 "Gavin Andresen" 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.