1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1QZO6I-0001Zl-4F
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:08:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.210.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pz0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-pz0-f47.google.com ([209.85.210.47])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QZO6H-0001Y1-5A
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:08:14 +0000
Received: by pzk36 with SMTP id 36so685838pzk.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.142.4 with SMTP id p4mr144331wfd.43.1308751685873; Wed, 22
Jun 2011 07:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.153.7 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=FTLnU-riNVYssnR9FLdcEeZX7gOS6Zdv1f_XDcJoSSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18440.87.106.138.84.1308200020.squirrel@lavabit.com>
<BANLkTi=FTLnU-riNVYssnR9FLdcEeZX7gOS6Zdv1f_XDcJoSSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:08:05 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikkBoHBr8z6Uv7oGU_KuT0bvgx3HA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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 freemail (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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
0.0 RFC_ABUSE_POST Both abuse and postmaster missing on sender domain
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QZO6H-0001Y1-5A
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [PULL] Add scriptPubKey enforced
sendescrow and redeemescrow API calls
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: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:08:14 -0000
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> I think you can just use an output script of
> =A0 2 <K1> <K2> <K3> 3 CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY
I think it is time to start experimenting with MULTISIG transactions on tes=
tnet.
Mike: Did Satoshi ever tell you what he was thinking for the best way
to implement MULTISIG transactions?
I'm wondering if hard-coding new standard script templates in
script.cpp Solver():
vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_1 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_2 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_2 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_2 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_1 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_PUBKEY << OP_3 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_2 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_PUBKEY << OP_3 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_3 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_PUBKEY << OP_3 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
... would be the right approach to support 1/2 of 2 and 1/2/3 of 3
signatures. It'd be nice if there were generic
OP_N << OP_PUBKEY_N << OP_N ... template matching opcodes, but there aren'=
t.
I'm also wondering if it makes sense to just support 2-of-2 (for
validate-on-multiple-devices) and 2-of-3 (for escrow) for now.
I think all of these could use a new type of bitcoin payment address;
it might make sense for THAT to be generic, maybe containing:
version byte
m
n
hash of xor of all n public keys
checksum
I'm most interested in the 2-of-2 case; I think merchants and
exchanges need bitcoin deposit/payment addresses that they can make
secure by requiring a 2-step signature process for spending those
funds.
--=20
--
Gavin Andresen
http://clearcoin.com/
|