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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <zgenjix@yahoo.com>) id 1RrSoV-0000cC-1O
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:20:51 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from nm40.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.229.33])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RrSoU-0006j1-Ab for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:20:50 +0000
Received: from [98.138.90.55] by nm40.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
29 Jan 2012 11:20:44 -0000
Received: from [98.138.87.10] by tm8.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
29 Jan 2012 11:19:44 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1010.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
29 Jan 2012 11:19:44 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 548274.40284.bm@omp1010.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 18461 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Jan 2012 11:19:44 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: oZ3jxjkVM1mDi2cU6oVAlvRAmWQuo0DgNL3VULcGjb2rmQQ
EAY2nr4r_6y3NcuNwCqwMPPjWFcRGqvtKsdh7uqAuMeMegav3n67vkm30f7i
TUUIy4XhZrvbdx2YFI5apR8JgLP7lMeTTIOKhQeZRZZd.1ir9UJeXbp1r6q5
3.NiPvP1_qLXn54cXh0PTbk2WVOXYQmoY11q27_SrDggfDetpPurDDyO_rYk
b.gynrCArz_K3pzQl9BhbowrFSLUfsGOMsU6jKTvqsPebpDFXQFR6gr3JlMy
iS0G2n5LOIgA9cYstnUq2TNJXtqh0k69f47BVXpSpwPs1sbYWZXof6r10Q3t
4GsgWTpfNADrnINmFI0i6FofWTRRCl8m35sBGIjBH_HSnlmtTbUxL72hNhRA
rnPXjK5Ccliz6Pu.w76M_
Received: from [92.20.138.208] by web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:19:44 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.116.331537
References: <1327812740.41242.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CAAS2fgRWJb+p=gM4eG_p4fr1+UsT-EO_YZOvkgh6SnktRRTyEw@mail.gmail.com>
<1327835941.47827.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1327835984.12365.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:19:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <1327835941.47827.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [98.138.229.33 listed in list.dnswl.org]
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(zgenjix[at]yahoo.com)
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-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
1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?98.138.229.33>]
-0.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RrSoU-0006j1-Ab
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Fw: Quote on BIP 16
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
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 11:20:51 -0000
(oops sorry greg- replied to you by mistake)=0A=0AThat address he gives is =
77 characters/bytes (same thing). What I'm asking is how can it be so small=
. I know that it's encoding a script, but then I started trying to imagine =
what kind of script and to me it seems that 2 public keys are too large for=
those 77 characters when encoded.=0A=0AThat is the example quoted on the f=
orums:=0A57HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBE7HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBiTE7=
vVhaPaBE7Hr=0A=0A=0ACould it be a mistake?=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message -=
----=0AFrom: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>=0ATo: Amir Taaki <zgenjix=
@yahoo.com>=0ACc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" <bitcoin-deve=
lopment@lists.sourceforge.net>=0ASent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 5:19 AM=0AS=
ubject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Quote on BIP 16=0A=0AOn Sat, Jan 28, 2012=
at 11:52 PM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com> wrote:=0A> How could you have =
a 70 byte long address without a P2SH scheme? Is this a mistake?=0A=0A...=
=A0 No it's not a mistake.=A0 P2SH _prevents_ needing long addresses.=0A=0A=
Lets unpack the acronym "pay to script _hash_".=A0 Hashes only need to=0Abe=
128-256 bits in size or so to have acceptable security, so you=0Adon't nee=
d something longer than that for paying to a hash.=0A=0ANote that gavin is =
saying 70 characters, not bytes.=0A=0AWithout some form of P2SH then only w=
ay for you to make a personal=0Achoice of asking people to pay to a two-fac=
tor protected account or=0Atwo a multiparty trust that manages the finances=
of an organization=0Ais using some form of "P2S", pay-to-script.=0A=0AIn o=
ther words, you'd have to have an address that encodes a full=0Ascript spec=
ification for the sender to pay to,=A0 instead of just=0Aencoding its hash.=
=A0 As a result these addresses would be much longer=0A(and potentially ver=
y long).=0A=0AThe minimum size of a two address involving encoded script wo=
uld be on=0Athat order, but they get bigger quite quickly if you add more o=
ptions=0Ato the script (actually 70 sounds quite small, it should be more l=
ike=0A100 for a minimum two pubkey script).=0A=0AIn addition to the unworka=
bility of very long addresses as described=0Aby gavin (amusingly I am unabl=
e to copy and paste the quoted example=0Ain one go) a P2S solution has seve=
ral problems which you might=0Aconsider more or less important:=0A=0A=0A(1)=
They are highly vulnerable to invisible substitution.=A0 E.g. I can=0Atriv=
ially take a P2S address, change one or two characters and get a=0Ascript w=
hich is redeemable by anyone.=A0 With P2SH you have to do=0Acomputation whi=
ch is exponential in the number of unchanged digits to=0Aget a look alike a=
ddress.=0A=0A(2) The sender is fully responsible for fees related to the en=
larged=0Atransactions. Even if _you're_ willing to take the txn-processing =
time=0Aand fee burden of a 30 person joint trust address,=A0 random e-comme=
rce=0Asites will not be and will randomly reject your addresses.=0A=0A(3) T=
hey create another input vector for non-trivial data which must=0Abe inspec=
ted and validated, potentially presenting an attack surface.=0A=0A(4) They =
leave the complicated (long) release rules in the transaction=0Aoutputs.=A0=
When a transaction is mined we can't be sure if it will ever=0Abe redeemed=
. The outputs are unprunable.=A0=A0 In a future world where=0Amany nodes pr=
une output space is far more important than input space=0Aand it would make=
sense to require more fees for it because we're=0Anever sure how long it w=
ould need to be stored (making it an=0Aattractive target for someone who wa=
nts to make Bitcoin unusable by=0Aspamming it with worthless data).=A0 P2SH=
reduces output sizes to the=0Aabsolute minimum without inflating the total=
data size.
|
