From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rr5fv-00012V-Nt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:38:27 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from 2508ds5-oebr.0.fullrate.dk ([95.166.54.49] helo=mail.ceptacle.com) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Rr5fu-00007N-6u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:38:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0410F15F216B for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:21:20 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceptacle.com Received: from mail.ceptacle.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server.ceptacle.private [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AUiKi+TnCHm3 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:21:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.0.1.28] (2508ds5-oebr.0.fullrate.dk [95.166.54.49]) by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 388F415F2156 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:21:20 +0100 (CET) From: Michael Gronager Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:21:19 +0100 Message-Id: To: Bitcoin Dev Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.6 SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject is all capitals X-Headers-End: 1Rr5fu-00007N-6u Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP-12, 16, 17 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: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:38:27 -0000 Dear Bitcoiners, I have been following some of the debate on the various BIP suggestions = for enabling e.g. multisignature transactions. ( First a little rant - = it seems like the discussion takes place in at least 5 different forums = plus the IRC, this is so annoying. Please keep the discussion at one = place and refer to this for people asking questions other places - = including me, now... ). I have some issues with BIP-16, it is mainly the lines 265-269 in the = reference implementation = (https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/blob/pay_to_script_hash/src/= base58.h):=20 PUBKEY_ADDRESS =3D 0, SCRIPT_ADDRESS =3D 5, PUBKEY_ADDRESS_TEST =3D 111, SCRIPT_ADDRESS_TEST =3D 196, The purpose of the networkID is broken by this, as it ties additional = information into an address as a hack. In the BIP-12 implementation I = argued that this notification on address level is not needed, and should = not be introduced, I am still of the same opinion. The bitcoin code has = enough of globals and cross references inside the code s it is today, = lets not add another one... If we want more information in a bitcoin address we could just as well = cannibalize it from the checksum - today it is 4 bytes (1 to 4mia) it = could be 2 or 3 bytes (1 to 65k or 16M) and that would not break the = current meaning of the network ID. This would have the same effect - = that you could not mistake two different addresses and create a = non-redeemable transaction. The BIP-17 seems a step forward, but I also agree with Gavins note on = one on the forums, that it behaves differently in input and output = scripts. So it obviously need some further work too. Cheers, Michael=