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
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jlrubin@mit.edu>) id 1X7rmG-0002TP-Vh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:55:41 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of mit.edu
designates 18.9.25.14 as permitted sender) client-ip=18.9.25.14;
envelope-from=jlrubin@mit.edu;
helo=dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu;
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu ([18.9.25.14])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1X7rmE-0001hr-RN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:55:40 +0000
X-AuditID: 1209190e-f79946d000007db1-10-53c82a35d5d6
Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43])
(using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP
id 6A.2E.32177.53A28C35; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:55:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11])
by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id s6HJtWMs029882
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:55:33 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com
[209.85.212.179]) (authenticated bits=0)
(User authenticated as jlrubin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id s6HJtU9w010957
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT)
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:55:32 -0400
Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id f8so3396846wiw.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.237.135 with SMTP id vc7mr49931124wjc.86.1405626930098;
Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.11.6 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0OeetO3P6eBHOwN8SUN3ZpN07yWJ0vsGxupZLgcD1MEVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5xwhgyCOdJwnXw+YchptfXjtshDi_VVEGOjR-hG2qV=u6m2g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0OFEDQp5umz=6_LUx5oJJmiKJoF90W7nvJPv0CtML+ftA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD5xwhhwMyL20nAUXz-Vv6m5ucH7UQcGQLyrFadAvqy4QXkbZw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0OeetO3P6eBHOwN8SUN3ZpN07yWJ0vsGxupZLgcD1MEVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeremy <jlrubin@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:55:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhhUZXcJsQbxqidguYMsuTw6CvXMQyYjaZXUmytVARNk1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01494148daf6f004fe690533
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrPKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrWuqdSLY4P0dfouGCbwOjB67F3xm
CmCM4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mr4tOAde8HjPsaK+Y/esjUw7i7tYuTkkBAwkdg2v40RwhaTuHBv
PVsXIxeHkMBsJomZT58ygSSEBB4yShzbFwOR+Mok8eDeHUYIZzGjxOpJa1kg2kslOqf/BRvF
KyAocXLmExaIbk+JKS86mEFsToFAiZ/HN7NCxBczSXx8oQhiswnISbw4eh6shkVAVeLl5lfs
XYwcQHMCJI78tgYJCwtYS6xpWwI2UkRARaLr/VE2EJtZIE7icNciVgjbS+Lks0XMExiFZiG5
YhaS1CygqcwC6hLr5wlBhNUkbm+7yg5ha0ssW/iaeQEj6ypG2ZTcKt3cxMyc4tRk3eLkxLy8
1CJdY73czBK91JTSTYzgkJfk28H49aDSIUYBDkYlHt4H144HC7EmlhVX5h5ilORgUhLlDVQ+
ESzEl5SfUpmRWJwRX1Sak1p8iFGCg1lJhDf7PlA5b0piZVVqUT5MSpqDRUmc9621VbCQQHpi
SWp2ampBahFMVoaDQ0mCd7oG0FDBotT01Iq0zJwShDQTByfIcB6g4WyaQDW8xQWJucWZ6RD5
U4z2HE2/jrYxccz7DyJ/3TwGIhedbmMSYsnLz0uVEud9CTJaAKQtozQPbjIsnb1iFAd6VJiX
E2Q4DzAVws1+BbSWCWitdDnIT8UliQgpqQbGFfr3Of9MtVodmPWrZWny/IZkvcwjx9ce3JPp
vUK1kPP/NbczFTWMenlcZ06Va3SYH06QVZt7c+pvhSPq2cs+GrzSfeysceZS0tY/813add0f
v2pMvbTz6sxNQeZ6mRyXPgc+XTRj7pf5dauOrd+xRu3cM8+8+PnVi4+KN/zW+3zKNK34nD+z
mhJLcUaioRZzUXEiAEJJPkhCAwAA
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1X7rmE-0001hr-RN
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Pay to MultiScript hash:
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, 17 Jul 2014 19:55:41 -0000
--089e01494148daf6f004fe690533
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
* the general cost of any network-wide change, versus P2SH which is
already analyzed by devs, rolled out and working
* the cost of updating everybody to relay this new transaction type,
whereas P2SH Just Works already
fair -- I think that there may be a big benefit realizable with this kind
of system.
* cost of increasing rate of UTXO growth versus P2SH
This operation is similar in cost to multisig? Although I suppose there is
the proposal to make all multisigs p2sh
* the cost of P2SH output is predictable, versus less predictable outputs
* "default public", versus P2SH's "default private"
-- Can you elaborate on these?
I think part of the problem is that there is low incentive for
development/cataloging of these useful types of script because there isn't
a horizon on getting them broadcastable by nodes other than testnet? Even
with pay to script hash it is still currently relegated to a subset of
script types iirc (I think I'm wrong on this one maybe (hopefully) -- if
so, let's get writing!)?
Hmm... another idea... what about doing a p2sh with a switch statement, ie:
OP_HASH160 <script set hash> OP_EQUAL
payable by:
{signatures...} <scriptX> <<script1 hash>, <script2 hash>...<scriptN hash>
in sorted order> OP_DUP
And then executed like a normal p2sh transaction except before the
<scriptX> is run, the set of hashes is checked for set membership (can't
find a concise way to express this, but it should be doable within the
current framework of p2sh processing).
Which lets you select one of n scripts each 520 bytes long without bloating
the utxo pool more than a p2sh, the cost being purely on disk.
In theory, this could represent a space savings on disk longterm for
regular p2sh. ie, if I have two 2 of 3 groups I want to be able to spend,
this system would represent an overall space savings.
Adding some kind of "function-hash-pointer jump table / switch statement"
could be pretty cool in terms of space savings as well as allowing for more
complicated scripts to be built.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> In a system like bitcoin, where the system has to keep running, you
> have to consider how to roll out upgrades, and the costs associated
> with that.
> * the general cost of any network-wide change, versus P2SH which is
> already analyzed by devs, rolled out and working
> * the cost of P2SH output is predictable, versus less predictable outputs
> * the cost of updating everybody to relay this new transaction type,
> whereas P2SH Just Works already
> * cost of increasing rate of UTXO growth versus P2SH
> * "default public", versus P2SH's "default private"
>
> It is true that publishing the script in the txout has the advantage
> of being easily audited by third parties scanning the blockchain, but
> in the interest of space efficiency you may accomplish the same thing
> by offering the script upon request out-of-band. The script is
> hash-sealed by the P2SH address, enabling perfect proof.
>
> Don't have a transcript handy, but these things are usually logged and
> google-searchable.
>
> In any case, it would be nice to get together and start building a
> "cookbook" of useful scripts like the ones you've been describing.
> The power of bitcoin scripts is only beginning to be explored. Use
> cases and examples are very helpful.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu> wrote:
> > Additional costs would be in terms of A) chance of user error/application
> > error -- proposed method is much simpler, as well as extra bytes for
> control
> > flow ( 4 per script if I am counting right).
> >
> >
> > The costs on a normal script do seem slightly more friendly, except this
> > method allows for hidden-till-spent permission groups, as well as as
> smaller
> > blockchain bloat overall (if scriptSig script has to store the logic for
> all
> > the potential permission group, it will be a larger script versus only
> > needing one permission group's script). An added benefit could also be in
> > blockchain analysis -- you can actively monitor the utxo pool for your
> known
> > associated scripts, whereas you couldn't for specialty scripts assembled
> per
> > group. Enables repeated spends with groups as a "cost object" w/o having
> to
> > recall all participants. ie, pay to the same perm groups as the other
> > employee did last time, but include me as a root this time.
> >
> >
> > Do you have a transcript of that chat by any chance? An interesting way
> to
> > do that would be to push the sigs onto the stack & have implicit orders,
> > then do expressions with their aliases, and then be able to assign
> "spending
> > groups".
> > ex:
> > code_sep
> > push script0
> > push script1
> > push script2
> > push script3
> > group_sep
> > mkgroup_2, 0,1 ; the id will be 4
> > mkgroup_3, 0,2,3 ; the id will be 5
> > mkUnionGroup_2, 4,5 ; the id will be 6
> > 2_of_3_group 0, 1, 2
> > mkIntersectionGroup_2 5, 6
> > complement_last ; complements last group, mutation
> > del_group 1 ; deletes the group #1, groups then reindex after
> > deletion (maybe the group was useful base class).
> > etc...
> > multisig check perm groups (checks if any groups on stack are valid from
> > script)
> >
> >
> > or even something like adding a little SAT scripting language with an
> eval.
> >
> > push script0
> > push script1
> > push script2
> > push script3
> > push <a=(1 & 2 & 0), b=a-1, a | 3 | b >
> > eval
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu> wrote:
> >> > Right now, this could be expressed multiple ways (ie, using an op_dup
> if
> >> > then else chain) , but all would incur additional costs in terms of
> >> > complicated control flows. Instead, I would propose:
> >>
> >> Can you quantify "additional costs in terms of complicated control
> flows"?
> >>
> >>
> >> > There is an implication in terms of increased utxo pool bloat, but
> also
> >> > an
> >> > implication in terms of increased txn complexity (each 20 byte hash
> >> > allows
> >> > for a 500 byte script, only one of the 500 byte scripts has to be
> >> > permanently stored on blockchain).
> >>
> >> When considering these costs, using a normal P2SH output + a script
> >> with OP_IF and friends seems more straightforward?
> >>
> >> Doing boolean logic with multisig groups is quite possible, e.g.
> >> "group AND group", "group OR (group AND group)" etc. Definitely a
> >> valid use case. I discussed how to do this on IRC with gmaxwell
> >> several months ago. I call it "multi-multisig" for lack of a better
> >> name.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy Rubin
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
>
--
Jeremy Rubin
--089e01494148daf6f004fe690533
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,he=
lvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">* the general cost of =
any network-wide change, versus P2SH which is<br>
already analyzed by devs, rolled out and working<br>* the cost of updating =
everybody to relay this new transaction type,<br>
whereas P2SH Just Works already<br>fair -- I think that there may be a big =
benefit realizable with this kind of system.<br><br>
* cost of increasing rate of UTXO growth versus P2SH<br></div><div class=3D=
"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:s=
mall;color:rgb(0,0,0)">This operation is similar in cost to multisig? Altho=
ugh I suppose there is the proposal to make all multisigs p2sh<br>
<br>
* the cost of P2SH output is predictable, versus less predictable outputs<b=
r>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,san=
s-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
* "default public", versus P2SH's "default private"=
<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica=
,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">-- Can you elaborate on these=
?<br>
</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-seri=
f;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>I think part of the problem is that=
there is low incentive for development/cataloging=C2=A0 of these useful ty=
pes of script because there isn't a horizon on getting them broadcastab=
le by nodes other than testnet? Even with pay to script hash it is still cu=
rrently relegated to a subset of script types iirc (I think I'm wrong o=
n this one maybe (hopefully) -- if so, let's get writing!)?<br>
<br><br><br></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-seri=
f;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Hmm... another idea... what about doing=
a p2sh with a switch statement, ie:<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_defau=
lt" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:r=
gb(0,0,0)">
OP_HASH160 <script set hash> OP_EQUAL<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmai=
l_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;=
color:rgb(0,0,0)">payable by:<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" sty=
le=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,=
0)">
{signatures...} <scriptX> <<script1 hash>, <script2 hash&=
gt;...<scriptN hash> in sorted order> OP_DUP<br><br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-s=
ize:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
And then executed like a normal p2sh transaction except before the <scri=
ptX> is run, the set of hashes is checked for set membership (can't =
find a concise way to express this, but it should be doable within the curr=
ent framework of p2sh processing).<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,san=
s-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_def=
ault" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color=
:rgb(0,0,0)">
Which lets you select one of n scripts each 520 bytes long without bloating=
the utxo pool more than a p2sh, the cost being purely on disk. <br><br></d=
iv><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-s=
erif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
In theory, this could represent a space savings on disk longterm for regula=
r p2sh. ie, if I have two 2 of 3 groups I want to be able to spend, this sy=
stem would represent an overall space savings.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;c=
olor:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helve=
tica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Adding some kind of "=
;function-hash-pointer jump table / switch statement" could be pretty =
cool in terms of space savings as well as allowing for more complicated scr=
ipts to be built.<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,san=
s-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 1=
7, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jga=
rzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>></span> wrote:=
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">In a system like bitcoin, where the system h=
as to keep running, you<br>
have to consider how to roll out upgrades, and the costs associated<br>
with that.<br>
* the general cost of any network-wide change, versus P2SH which is<br>
already analyzed by devs, rolled out and working<br>
* the cost of P2SH output is predictable, versus less predictable outputs<b=
r>
* the cost of updating everybody to relay this new transaction type,<br>
whereas P2SH Just Works already<br>
* cost of increasing rate of UTXO growth versus P2SH<br>
* "default public", versus P2SH's "default private"=
<br>
<br>
It is true that publishing the script in the txout has the advantage<br>
of being easily audited by third parties scanning the blockchain, but<br>
in the interest of space efficiency you may accomplish the same thing<br>
by offering the script upon request out-of-band. =C2=A0The script is<br>
hash-sealed by the P2SH address, enabling perfect proof.<br>
<br>
Don't have a transcript handy, but these things are usually logged and<=
br>
google-searchable.<br>
<br>
In any case, it would be nice to get together and start building a<br>
"cookbook" of useful scripts like the ones you've been descri=
bing.<br>
The power of bitcoin scripts is only beginning to be explored. =C2=A0Use<br=
>
cases and examples are very helpful.<br>
<div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Jeremy <<a href=3D"mailto:jlrubin@mit.e=
du" target=3D"_blank">jlrubin@mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> Additional costs would be in terms of A) chance of user error/applicat=
ion<br>
> error -- proposed method is much simpler, as well as extra bytes for c=
ontrol<br>
> flow ( 4 per script if I am counting right).<br>
><br>
><br>
> The costs on a normal script do seem slightly more friendly, except th=
is<br>
> method allows for hidden-till-spent permission groups, as well as as s=
maller<br>
> blockchain bloat overall (if scriptSig script has to store the logic f=
or all<br>
> the potential permission group, it will be a larger script =C2=A0versu=
s only<br>
> needing one permission group's script). An added benefit could als=
o be in<br>
> blockchain analysis -- you can actively monitor the utxo pool for your=
known<br>
> associated scripts, whereas you couldn't for specialty scripts ass=
embled per<br>
> group. Enables repeated spends with groups as a "cost object"=
; w/o having to<br>
> recall all participants. ie, pay to the same perm groups as the other<=
br>
> employee did last time, but include me as a root this time.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Do you have a transcript of that chat by any chance? An interesting wa=
y to<br>
> do that would be to push the sigs onto the stack & have implicit o=
rders,<br>
> then do expressions with their aliases, and then be able to assign &qu=
ot;spending<br>
> groups".<br>
> ex:<br>
> code_sep<br>
> push script0<br>
> push script1<br>
> push script2<br>
> push script3<br>
> group_sep<br>
> mkgroup_2, 0,1 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0; the id will be 4<br>
> mkgroup_3, 0,2,3 =C2=A0 ; the id will be 5<br>
> mkUnionGroup_2, 4,5 ; the id will be 6<br>
> 2_of_3_group 0, 1, 2<br>
> mkIntersectionGroup_2 5, 6<br>
> complement_last =C2=A0; complements last group, mutation<br>
> del_group 1 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0; deletes the group #1, =
groups then reindex after<br>
> deletion (maybe the group was useful base class).<br>
> etc...<br>
> multisig check perm groups (checks if any groups on stack are valid fr=
om<br>
> script)<br>
><br>
><br>
> or even something like adding a little SAT scripting language with an =
eval.<br>
><br>
> push script0<br>
> push script1<br>
> push script2<br>
> push script3<br>
> push <a=3D(1 & 2 & 0), b=3Da-1, a | 3 | b ><br>
> eval<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Jeff Garzik <<a href=3D"mailto:jg=
arzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Jeremy <<a href=3D"mailto:jlru=
bin@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">jlrubin@mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Right now, this could be expressed multiple ways (ie, using a=
n op_dup if<br>
>> > then else chain) , but all would incur additional costs in te=
rms of<br>
>> > complicated control flows. Instead, I would propose:<br>
>><br>
>> Can you quantify "additional costs in terms of complicated co=
ntrol flows"?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> > There is an implication in terms of increased utxo pool bloat=
, but also<br>
>> > an<br>
>> > implication in terms of increased txn complexity (each 20 byt=
e hash<br>
>> > allows<br>
>> > for a 500 byte script, only one of the 500 byte scripts has t=
o be<br>
>> > permanently stored on blockchain).<br>
>><br>
>> When considering these costs, using a normal P2SH output + a scrip=
t<br>
>> with OP_IF and friends seems more straightforward?<br>
>><br>
>> Doing boolean logic with multisig groups is quite possible, e.g.<b=
r>
>> "group AND group", "group OR (group AND group)"=
; etc. =C2=A0Definitely a<br>
>> valid use case. =C2=A0I discussed how to do this on IRC with gmaxw=
ell<br>
>> several months ago. =C2=A0I call it "multi-multisig" for=
lack of a better<br>
>> name.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Jeremy Rubin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><span><font color=3D"#888888">--<br>
Jeff Garzik<br>
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist<br>
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" target=3D"=
_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div dir=
=3D"ltr">Jeremy Rubin</div>
</div></div>
--089e01494148daf6f004fe690533--
|