Re: [Bitcoin-development] multisig, op_eval and lock_time/sequence...

["Michael Grønager" <gronager@ceptacle.com>]

Hi Gavin / Alan,

Agree that we would also need to consider these "half" transaction valid. At least for the time being up to the lock_time, and one could have an extra constrain - that the lock_time should be within e.g. 30minutes that would avoid the will-never-be-completed cases.

My main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that they might never be standard (I think a great number of clients will emerge - and this would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the p2p network it will be a seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, even across different clients. But I share your concern on the 

I can, however, also understand your worries, and some other constraints should be introduced to ensure that not even short time spamming is possible... 

/M

On 09/11/2011, at 20:13, Gavin Andresen wrote:

>> 1. from client1 I issue a transaction containing one of the signatures, with a locktime e.g. 10 minutes from now and a sequence of 0. This transaction is now posted to the p2p network.
> 
> As Alan said, that won't work-- it will not be relayed across the
> network because it isn't a valid transaction until it has enough
> signatures.
> 
>> Alternatively, the transactions would need to be sent between clients using another protocol...
> 
> Formats and protocols for gathering signatures are in the TODO
> category-- Alan's BIP 10 is the next piece of the puzzle, maybe a
> standardized http/https RESTful API, or HTTP/JSON, or protocol buffers
> and raw sockets, or... something... solution (or solutions) built on
> top of that makes sense.
> 
> I don't think partially-signed transactions belong on the main Bitcoin
> P2P network, mostly because I don't see any way of preventing somebody
> from endlessly spamming bogus, will-never-be-completed partial
> transactions just to be annoying.
> 
> -- 
> --
> Gavin Andresen