From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RrVvU-0006h1-Et for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:40:16 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RrVvT-0004Ba-GJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:40:16 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-164-217.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.164.217]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B31B560703; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:40:10 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:40:01 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <1327812740.41242.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1327835984.12365.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> 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-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201201290940.02464.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1RrVvT-0004Ba-GJ Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fw: Quote on BIP 16 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, 29 Jan 2012 14:40:16 -0000 On Sunday, January 29, 2012 9:30:10 AM Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Amir Taaki 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? ;)