On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Alan Reiner wrote:
[snip]
> But gmaxwell has expressed some compelling reasons why plain multi-sig
> might be abused, which maybe suggests we don't want it ever considered
> standard...? I guess I'm not really promoting one thing or another, but
Be careful not t
t;
> - Original Message -
> From: Amir Taaki
> To:
> "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:52 AM
> Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Quote on BIP 16
>
> Gavin said:
> "Part of the controversy is wheth
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> How could you have a 70 byte long address without a P2SH scheme? Is this a
> mistake?
... No it's not a mistake. P2SH _prevents_ needing long addresses.
Lets unpack the acronym "pay to script _hash_". Hashes only need to
be 128-256 bits i
On Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:10:41 AM Amir Taaki wrote:
> 2 compressed pubkeys
2 compressed pubkeys are 33 bytes each. Add 1 bytes for the N (n-of-m), 1 byte
for the address version, and finally the 4 byte checksum, you get a total of
72 bytes. But these are *bytes* - to get an address, you al
2 compressed pubkeys
- Original Message -
From: Amir Taaki
To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:52 AM
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Quote on BIP 16
Gavin said:
"Part of the controversy is whether really long bitcoin
Gavin said:
"Part of the controversy is whether really long bitcoin addresses would work--
would it be OK if the new bitcoin addresses were really long and looked
something like
this: 57HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBE7HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBiTE7vVhaPaBE7Hr
(or possibly even longer)
I've a
6 matches
Mail list logo
