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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1Rc4n6-0005rM-8D
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:39:48 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Rc4n5-0006Em-7Y for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:39:48 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net
[184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A248E560541;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:39:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:39:32 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.4-gentoo; KDE/4.7.3; x86_64; ; )
References: <201112170132.26201.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAS2fgSjbkS03x+e21pRvA9jswy7OdKP4Qe3uBLe_kTbBdv77g@mail.gmail.com>
<201112171928.13504.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <201112171928.13504.luke@dashjr.org>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583
X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583
X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201112171939.33235.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-2.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Rc4n5-0006Em-7Y
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Pubkey addresses
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: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:39:48 -0000
On Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:28:12 PM Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Saturday, December 17, 2011 6:46:34 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Sorry to be curt=E2=80=94 I'm a little irritated that discussion on rec=
overy
> > in OP_EVAL was dropped because "input script size doesn't matter
> > because of pruning" and now people are talking about adding another
> > address type which creates seriously bloated transactions where there
> > is pruning, because its slightly smaller in the no-pruning case (and
> > again, still not as small for key recovery).
>=20
> I missed that bit. I'm willing to defer full OP_EVAL support on Eligius in
> order to enable key recovery...
In fact, as long as we have this opportunity to enable new opcodes, maybe w=
e=20
should spend some time revisiting what doors that opens...
|
