From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rc4n6-0005rM-8D for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:39:48 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Rc4n5-0006Em-7Y for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:39:48 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A248E560541; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:39:41 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:39:32 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.4-gentoo; KDE/4.7.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <201112170132.26201.luke@dashjr.org> <201112171928.13504.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: <201112171928.13504.luke@dashjr.org> 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201112171939.33235.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -2.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Rc4n5-0006Em-7Y Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Pubkey addresses X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:39:48 -0000 On Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:28:12 PM Luke-Jr wrote: > On Saturday, December 17, 2011 6:46:34 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > Sorry to be curt=E2=80=94 I'm a little irritated that discussion on rec= overy > > in OP_EVAL was dropped because "input script size doesn't matter > > because of pruning" and now people are talking about adding another > > address type which creates seriously bloated transactions where there > > is pruning, because its slightly smaller in the no-pruning case (and > > again, still not as small for key recovery). >=20 > I missed that bit. I'm willing to defer full OP_EVAL support on Eligius in > order to enable key recovery... In fact, as long as we have this opportunity to enable new opcodes, maybe w= e=20 should spend some time revisiting what doors that opens...