Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fw: Quote on BIP 16

["Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>]

On Sunday, January 29, 2012 9:30:10 AM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > (oops sorry greg- replied to you by mistake)
> > 
> > That address he gives is 77 characters/bytes (same thing). What I'm
> > asking is how can it be so small.
> 
> That's an alternative design for multisig addresses that would put a byte
> giving the type of transaction and the 20-byte hashes of each of the public
> keys involved. They would not have been redeemed using CHECKMULTISIG, but
> would use DUP HASH160 CHECKSIG and the arithmetic or logical opcodes to
> create the "m of n" condition.
> 
> Nobody really liked that solution because it means a new 'type' of bitcoin
> address every time we want a new transaction type and long addresses.
> 
> Its only advantage is it didn't use CHECKMULTISIG, so there were no
> problems with maximum-sigops-per-block.

In other words, if the max-sigops-per-block were ever approaching a real 
problem, we could just start using these kind of transactions instead hidden 
behind the P2SH... so the one remotely-tangible benefit of BIP 16 over 17 has 
been solved, right? ;)