From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X7dgR-0000B6-1d for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:52:43 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.43; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-wg0-f43.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1X7dgP-0001Gt-Ah for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:52:43 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l18so1830603wgh.14 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:52:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=FfudQ5POpcWISivSyIKB06gSkLYQk/CjvbYAkT/P9Mk=; b=mT4/0FQAEiX8RLc9EQfHPwWId2UNi9k5qWSFGQa8kkxyOLyVl0jt3JN6ZHY4bZynky aTreynRimOlOnpA/sfqZxm0ucrhMitP8vWyUVE9t2mxAuUWBjfEWG9b7ajYPrG0KFraY OCJRerm4Yr74auxZ11b3XmzDP1Al4qnYdkpj023BIhU/j/2lNbet3GKbZ2ToiOIfgxzw kr3P06tv8fDrNn3dmO8oxliGh6n/pJkDLgQYVUmg1PzhcXKIuf9rp61hPB+8o//3HqVE Zh17kp1IefHuueNsY/ENfu8/mYrNp+JhaXkxBYz9obU1SR7G9m/LFj3oDiIYE7onisKV YL9w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkJtD81j6VAHoieehVHB08EJf8lVUZQ2231EanC8C5KPV9uMdS9Cl6G1t/mj6nHHaJSLML3 X-Received: by 10.181.11.232 with SMTP id el8mr19210276wid.57.1405572755111; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:52:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.5.67 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:52:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jeff Garzik Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 00:52:14 -0400 Message-ID: To: Jeremy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 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 X-Headers-End: 1X7dgP-0001Gt-Ah Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Pay to MultiScript hash: 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: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:52:43 -0000 On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Jeremy wrote: > Right now, this could be expressed multiple ways (ie, using an op_dup if > then else chain) , but all would incur additional costs in terms of > complicated control flows. Instead, I would propose: Can you quantify "additional costs in terms of complicated control flows"? > There is an implication in terms of increased utxo pool bloat, but also an > implication in terms of increased txn complexity (each 20 byte hash allows > for a 500 byte script, only one of the 500 byte scripts has to be > permanently stored on blockchain). When considering these costs, using a normal P2SH output + a script with OP_IF and friends seems more straightforward? Doing boolean logic with multisig groups is quite possible, e.g. "group AND group", "group OR (group AND group)" etc. Definitely a valid use case. I discussed how to do this on IRC with gmaxwell several months ago. I call it "multi-multisig" for lack of a better name.