Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reward for P2SH IsStandard() patch.

[Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:05:26PM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
> Long-term we should be using P2SH with an inner OP_CHECKSIG for most addresses
> as it's a 1 byte savings. Change addresses can have this done first, although
> bitcoinj support will help so that satoshidice and similar sites can pay to
> P2SH change. As for multisig's P2SH overhead for a 1-of-2 and 2-of-2 and
> 3-of-3, is 10%, 8.6% and 6.2% respectively, all pretty minor, especially if you
> assume the blocksize limit will be raised.

Small comment: the current implementation in the reference client uses a custom
script encoder for the UTXO database, which stores every (valid) send-to-pubkey
as 33 bytes and every send-to-pubkeyhash or send-to-scripthash as 21 bytes.
So for "standard" address payment, there is no storage impact of using P2SH
instead.

-- 
Pieter