summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/6a/4f290b3322e17a2ab8b3997c56fb03aa4410e1
blob: 574f258c4ab2b072687df9a9c6097cf2037fff20 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <bgroff@lavabit.com>) id 1QZTAs-0004zD-VH
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:33:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.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-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1QZTAs-0004KE-8m for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:33:18 +0000
Received: from a.earth.lavabit.com (a.earth.lavabit.com [192.168.111.10])
	by karen.lavabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB25811BB53;
	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:33:12 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from lavabit.com (torserver.uvt.nl [137.56.163.46])
	by lavabit.com with ESMTP id 4GOQ6VSQ0WDD;
	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:33:12 -0500
Received: from 137.56.163.46 (SquirrelMail authenticated user bgroff)
	by lavabit.com with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:33:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <37401.137.56.163.46.1308771192.squirrel@lavabit.com>
In-Reply-To: <59140.77.247.181.162.1308759826.squirrel@lavabit.com>
References: <18440.87.106.138.84.1308200020.squirrel@lavabit.com>
	<BANLkTi=FTLnU-riNVYssnR9FLdcEeZX7gOS6Zdv1f_XDcJoSSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikkBoHBr8z6Uv7oGU_KuT0bvgx3HA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinUbJ6CKczHiyX2esMyRWgUrJ_9ASeOqZbRj+23GZgjcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikP-VheXQyXikH6jvaqnWfH_cNjnw@mail.gmail.com>
	<59140.77.247.181.162.1308759826.squirrel@lavabit.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:33:12 -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
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 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
X-Headers-End: 1QZTAs-0004KE-8m
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 19:33:19 -0000

> Gavin said:
>> 3DUP ADD  ADD HASH160 ...hash(pubkey1+2+3)... EQUALVERIFY 2 3 ROLL
>> CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY

On second thought, I'm not sure this is workable.  You would have to
distribute each party's pubkey ahead of time, otherwise you run the risk
that a party falls off the face of the earth and then you can't provide
the pubkeys to have hash(pubkey1+2+3) EQUALVERIFY.

If you have to distribute the pubkeys ahead of time, then the reduction i=
n
address length becomes moot.

So it seems to be either distribute the pubkeys or distribute the
hash160(pubkey)'s.

--
Bobby Groff