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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RORMh-0007Xa-TF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:56:11 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from backup-server.nordu.net ([193.10.252.66]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1RORMb-0007Hp-PP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:56:11 +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 pAA9tt39010965 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:55:57 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_Gr=F8nager?= In-Reply-To: <4EBB3E68.6060402@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:55:55 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <200034A7-15F9-438F-A6B1-923A69348F55@ceptacle.com> <4EBB3E68.6060402@gmail.com> To: Alan Reiner 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: 1RORMb-0007Hp-PP Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] multisig, op_eval and lock_time/sequence... 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, 10 Nov 2011 09:56:12 -0000 Hi Alan, I have now read BIP0010 - one first idea is: add a link to it on the = wiki (or remove all bip links from the wiki... - we don't want two = places for BIPs...) I am not sure where you prefer the discussion on the content of the BIP = - but now you get it here, but feel free to redirect... Likes: * inclusion of prevout txout scripts - could prove handy * that it is a proposal to do this similarly on all clients Dislikes: * the format - I guess I would prefer a normal JSON format - where the = scripts gets populated step by step. As for the scriptPubKey (now an = awful name...) it would be easy to just add it to the JSON, or have the = prevouts simply be the actual txouts instead of {hash,n}. Comments: * it is good to have this proposal, but I think that once we see ways to = communicate it they could very well radically steer how a format should = look. Take e.g. the discussion we had with Gavin yesterday, if we had = chosen to move in that direction BIP0010 would had been useless. So = perhaps a bit premature? Cheers, Michael On 10/11/2011, at 04:00, Alan Reiner wrote: > The purpose of creating BIP 0010 now, is to encourage a standard that = developers want to adopt, from the outset. Every developer who is = planning to touch multi-signature transactions, is going to have to = solve the problem of multi-sig tx exchanges, eventually. By offering an = excellent solution before they've started asking the question, there's a = good chance people will use it. Hear me out... >=20 > Protocols get fragmented when there's multiple competing ways to do = something, each having some advantages the others don't have. This = leads to developers with differing priorities picking different ones, or = creating their own. However, I believe that the problem BIP 0010 seeks = to solve is a fairly straightforward problem. There's not a lot of = variety in the solutions that could compete against it. People just = need a way to pass this data around, and they want it to be as = convenient to use, and as easy to implement as possible. In that sense, = I think BIP 0010 (or some future variant) is fairly optimal as a = building block for higher-level protocols. =20 >=20 > If anyone has ideas for why someone would want to create a competing = idea to BIP 0010 (besides not being aware of it when they start), I'd = like to discuss it. I'm fairly confident that any such ideas could just = be added to BIP 0010 and thus reset the question of why anyone would = need a competing idea. >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 11/09/2011 03:03 PM, Michael Gr=F8nager wrote: >> My main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that = they might never be standard (I think a great number of clients will = emerge - and this would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the = p2p network it will be a seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, = even across different clients. But I share your concern on the=20 >>=20 >> /M >>=20 >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > RSA(R) Conference 2012 > Save $700 by Nov 18 > Register now > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development Michael Gronager, PhD Owner Ceptacle / NDGF Director, NORDUnet A/S Jens Juels Gade 33 2100 Copenhagen E Mobile: +45 31 62 14 01 E-mail: gronager@ceptacle.com Michael Gronager, PhD Owner Ceptacle / NDGF Director, NORDUnet A/S Jens Juels Gade 33 2100 Copenhagen E Mobile: +45 31 62 14 01 E-mail: gronager@ceptacle.com