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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1QwdZX-00025Y-T0
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:18:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QwdZW-0006i1-JW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:18:31 +0000
Received: by fxg11 with SMTP id 11so2945555fxg.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.22.8 with SMTP id l8mr9498788fab.105.1314292704207; Thu,
25 Aug 2011 10:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.20.6 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D0D808D6-DBF2-47C0-A65A-22AE689C861F@ceptacle.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>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:18:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0vqbFwTJL2gj0N3FWH7KkEN+0FjRWR9_XqbEuxNMM6Aw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael_Gr=F8nager?= <gronager@ceptacle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
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
(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
0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QwdZW-0006i1-JW
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: <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: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:18:32 -0000
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Michael Gr=F8nager <gronager@ceptacle.com>=
wrote:
> Put in another way - do we *really* need to couple the securing of the wa=
llet to creating a new address type ?
Nope.
I should have been more clear in my initial email and in the
proposal-- I am not proposing anything more than just agreeing on the
very lowest-level infrastructure, so there is a solid foundation upon
which we can build a couple of key very-high-priority features.
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.
--=20
--
Gavin Andresen
|
