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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1RrVvU-0006h1-Et
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:40:16 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RrVvT-0004Ba-GJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:40:16 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-164-217.dhcp.embarqhsd.net
[184.4.164.217]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B31B560703;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:40:10 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:40:01 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <1327812740.41242.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<1327835984.12365.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CABsx9T2A8f64mh2-uSKwrjj9aEo0Z=jHyETQ5J9cka9JwyJqJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2A8f64mh2-uSKwrjj9aEo0Z=jHyETQ5J9cka9JwyJqJw@mail.gmail.com>
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="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201201290940.02464.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1RrVvT-0004Ba-GJ
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fw: Quote on BIP 16
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, 29 Jan 2012 14:40:16 -0000
On Sunday, January 29, 2012 9:30:10 AM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > (oops sorry greg- replied to you by mistake)
> >
> > That address he gives is 77 characters/bytes (same thing). What I'm
> > asking is how can it be so small.
>
> That's an alternative design for multisig addresses that would put a byte
> giving the type of transaction and the 20-byte hashes of each of the public
> keys involved. They would not have been redeemed using CHECKMULTISIG, but
> would use DUP HASH160 CHECKSIG and the arithmetic or logical opcodes to
> create the "m of n" condition.
>
> Nobody really liked that solution because it means a new 'type' of bitcoin
> address every time we want a new transaction type and long addresses.
>
> Its only advantage is it didn't use CHECKMULTISIG, so there were no
> problems with maximum-sigops-per-block.
In other words, if the max-sigops-per-block were ever approaching a real
problem, we could just start using these kind of transactions instead hidden
behind the P2SH... so the one remotely-tangible benefit of BIP 16 over 17 has
been solved, right? ;)
|
