From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RKnaA-0000be-LF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:51:02 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from backup-server.nordu.net ([193.10.252.66]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1RKna8-0006ZY-9r for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:51:02 +0000 Received: from [109.105.106.199] ([109.105.106.199]) (authenticated bits=0) by backup-server.nordu.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9V8onoe024280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:50:51 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_Gr=F8nager?= In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:50:49 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <267605F1-9DEA-4870-81C3-C27E11850AD2@ceptacle.com> References: <7A50EE90-0FFC-45FB-A27F-786AEB23A8CA@ceptacle.com> <1089B122-1274-454C-9097-700D392BF0FA@ceptacle.com> <564C59F8-8077-4603-8EAC-389C30509F02@ceptacle.com> To: Gavin Andresen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1RKna8-0006ZY-9r Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Detecting OP_EVAL scriptPubKeys that are to you 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: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:51:02 -0000 >=20 > How would I know that unless you told me? At least you would have a hunch that something like that had happened as = one of your addresses had been part of a transaction (at least in my = setup it would pop up immediately...). >=20 > I think the right long-term solution is moving away from bitcoin > addresses as 'pay-to entity' and create an infrastructure where we're > paying people or organizations. I am not sure what you mean by this - just recall that the semi = anonymously feature of bitcoin is one of its key features. > But in the short term, I think there > are lots of benefits to creating a new type of bitcoin address built > on top of OP_EVAL that will be very easy for all of our existing > infrastructure to support. Still, how do you solve the end less expansions of bitcoin addresses = that each, depending of a leading 1, 2, 3... means a quite specific = script inside the OP_EVAL ??? Its not esthetic... Cheers, M >=20 > --=20 > -- > Gavin Andresen