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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1R9g0X-0007GU-P1
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:32:17 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.47; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qw0-f47.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.216.47])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1R9g0X-0006Qy-2d
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:32:17 +0000
Received: by qadc1 with SMTP id c1so582726qad.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.186.69 with SMTP id cr5mr8448159qab.346.1317400331564;
	Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.214.144 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2fqvivhnjSDsLiYdYJ09E7y+=EmsVH3BvLmA4tGri7bQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2QzafV-uzn7yL01gs2mrzLaP0FCgjt_O--Ldw+s-Xm9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2fqvivhnjSDsLiYdYJ09E7y+=EmsVH3BvLmA4tGri7bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:32:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRCyppz27-_UhjLnK3a8=DBOVMixk1COv5-uYXGa6WuxA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
	0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1R9g0X-0006Qy-2d
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Multisignature transations
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:32:17 -0000

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>> This adds initial support for three new types of transactions:
>> (a and b)
>> (a or b)
>> (a and b) or c
>
> Does this mean dispute mediation (2-of-3) will not be supported? I thought
> the plan was also to allow CHECKMULTISIG for smallish numbers of keys.

The ease of omitting useful cases is why I was strongly supporting the
full RPN boolean validation, even though it's harder to get good
testing confidence.