On Sunday, January 29, 2012 9:30:10 AM Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Amir Taaki <zgen...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > (oops sorry greg- replied to you by mistake) > > > > That address he gives is 77 characters/bytes (same thing). What I'm > > asking is how can it be so small. > > That's an alternative design for multisig addresses that would put a byte > giving the type of transaction and the 20-byte hashes of each of the public > keys involved. They would not have been redeemed using CHECKMULTISIG, but > would use DUP HASH160 CHECKSIG and the arithmetic or logical opcodes to > create the "m of n" condition. > > Nobody really liked that solution because it means a new 'type' of bitcoin > address every time we want a new transaction type and long addresses. > > Its only advantage is it didn't use CHECKMULTISIG, so there were no > problems with maximum-sigops-per-block.
In other words, if the max-sigops-per-block were ever approaching a real problem, we could just start using these kind of transactions instead hidden behind the P2SH... so the one remotely-tangible benefit of BIP 16 over 17 has been solved, right? ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
