On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Michael Grønager <grona...@ceptacle.com> wrote: > Put in another way - do we *really* need to couple the securing of the wallet > to creating a new address type ?
Nope. I should have been more clear in my initial email and in the proposal-- I am not proposing anything more than just agreeing on the very lowest-level infrastructure, so there is a solid foundation upon which we can build a couple of key very-high-priority features. I wanted to talk about it now so there is rough consensus on what to put on the road map, and to get as many smart brains looking at the proposal and making it as good as possible. Current proposal is at: https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f I have two issues with it: 1) groffer reports that there's a bug in CHECKMULTISIG (pops too many arguments off the stack), so perhaps we should avoid using it at all. Fixing the bug would change its behavior, and is not an option because that would cause a blockchain split. We absolutely need unit tests and better documentation for how CHECKMULTISIG behaves (perhaps it is working as intended, and Satoshi just messed up the description of what it does in the comment). 2) How often will the 1-of-3 and 3-of-3 cases be used? I included them just for completeness, but perhaps they should be dropped for now so there is less code to write and test. I just don't imagine there are many cases where you have exactly three parties and 1-of-3 or 3-of-3 are required to spend. -- -- Gavin Andresen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K The only unified storage solution that offers unified management Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient. Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
