Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=joel.kaartinen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-bw0-f47.google.com; 
From: Joel Joonatan Kaartinen <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2fGcLk477QagbyyPd3cFsOrLKRqG9_GKLf9nirh=Nocg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BD206D96-C458-4DD7-92F6-32AE476C259A@ceptacle.com>
	<CABsx9T3T7UZ-G9wsb_NDMBYpnnp9XBnjULmVVDgVXzEaUKn=5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T3ESoZ21h_V0a8PZAN4MS+KRZ8eVjKc47p9wgJmH0jt-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<E390E6EB-BE00-4F96-A4FB-05C39E2036BB@ceptacle.com>
	<CABsx9T2fGcLk477QagbyyPd3cFsOrLKRqG9_GKLf9nirh=Nocg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:32:00 +0200
Message-ID: <1320874320.27400.89.camel@mei>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>, Bitcoin
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] multisig,
 op_eval and lock_time/sequence...
Precedence: list

It's propably best to create a separate p2p network for off-band
information like this. No need to involve the blockchain with it.

- Joel

On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:18 -0500, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> One more thought on putting arbitrary stuff in the scriptSig:
> 
> Miners could decide to revolt and remove the extra scriptSig
> information before including the transaction in their blocks. They'd
> still get the full transaction fee, and the transaction would still
> validate so the block would be accepted by everybody else.
> 
> Come to think of it, if a node relaying transactions wanted to save
> bandwidth costs or be annoying, it could also strip off the extra
> information before forwarding it, so this isn't a reliable
> communication mechanism. It is probably a much better idea to use
> another protocol to gather signatures.
>