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 1RcHpE-0004cX-HD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:34:52 +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 1RcHpD-0005HA-N1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:34:52 +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 223E5560505; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:34:46 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Jorge =?iso-8859-1?q?Tim=F3n?= Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:34:37 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.4-gentoo; KDE/4.7.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <201112170132.26201.luke@dashjr.org> <201112180903.34398.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: 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-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201112180934.38718.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -2.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RcHpD-0005HA-N1 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net 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 14:34:52 -0000 On Sunday, December 18, 2011 9:28:36 AM Jorge Tim=F3n wrote: > Back on topic, is actually putting the whole pub key in each output > what you're proposing? Yes, just like is already done for generation, since it is more efficient=20 *overall* for the block chain. sipa's key extraction is a MUCH better=20 solution, however, so if we can get that without a block chain fork, I'm=20 inclined to favour it.