1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <rick.wesson@iidf.org>) id 1QwFJt-0006oX-T7
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:24:45 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-yw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QwFJs-0007AD-MM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:24:45 +0000
Received: by ywa12 with SMTP id 12so1160174ywa.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.154.3 with SMTP id o3mr1991662icw.221.1314199027443; Wed,
24 Aug 2011 08:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.244.130 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:17:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJ1JLtsYrHpwhehUx2WDHpLoE0GwEVzF6gsqHiGnHFGh7i7o_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rick Wesson <rick@support-intelligence.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e83f031e65a04ab41cead
X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QwFJs-0007AD-MM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to
schedule a blockchain split?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:24:46 -0000
--90e6ba6e83f031e65a04ab41cead
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
wow, with all the feature requests and bug fixing that needs to be done you
want to go off on a tangent.
Vision my friend, once centered on robust architecture, may then be directed
on a hard left turn.
Lets get a feature road map done, bug fix and testing framework set up
... or fork this puppy to folks that can execute the above.
-rick
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>wrote:
> It seems to me the fastest path to very secure, very-hard-to-lose
> bitcoin wallets is multi-signature transactions.
>
> To organize this discussion: first, does everybody agree?
>
> ByteCoin pointed to a research paper that gives a scheme for splitting
> a private key between two people, neither of which every knows the
> full key, but, together, both can DSA-sign transactions. That's very
> cool, but it involves high-end cutting-edge crypto like zero-knowledge
> proofs that I know very little about (are implementations available?
> are they patented? have they been thoroughly vetted/tested? etc).
> So I'm assuming that is NOT the fastest way to solving the problem.
>
> If anybody has some open-source, patent-free, thoroughly-tested code
> that already does DSA-key-splitting, speak up please.
>
>
> I've been trying to get consensus on low-level 'standard' transactions
> for transactions that must be signed by 2 or 3 keys; current draft
> proposal is here:
> https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f
> and discussion on the forums here:
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38928.0
> ... and there is a pull request that is relevant here:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/319
>
>
> I still think it is a good idea to enable a set of new 'standard'
> multisignature transactions, so they get relayed and included into
> blocks. I don't want to let "the perfect become the enemy of the
> good" -- does anybody disagree?
>
> The arguments against are that if the proposed standard transactions
> are accepted, then the next step is to define a new kind of bitcoin
> address that lets coins be deposited into a multisignature-protected
> wallet.
>
> And those new as-yet-undefined bitcoin addresses will have to be 2 or
> 3 times as big as current bitcoin addresses, and will be incompatible
> with old clients.
>
> So, if we are going to have new releases that are incompatible with
> old clients why not do things right in the first place, implement or
> enable opcodes so the new bitcoin addresses can be small, and schedule
> a block chain split for N months from now.
>
> My biggest worry is we'll say "Sure, it'll only take a couple days to
> agree on how to do it right" and six months from now there is still no
> consensus on exactly which digest function should be used, or whether
> or not there should be a new opcode for arbitrary boolean expressions
> involving keypairs. And people's wallets continue to get lost or
> stolen.
>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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
>
--90e6ba6e83f031e65a04ab41cead
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
wow, with all the feature requests and bug fixing that needs to be done you=
want to go off on a tangent.<div><br></div><div>Vision my friend, once cen=
tered on robust=A0architecture, may then be directed on a hard left turn.=
=A0<br>
<br></div><div>Lets get a feature road map done, bug fix and testing framew=
ork set up=A0</div><div><br></div><div>... or fork this puppy to folks that=
can execute the above.</div><div><br></div><div>-rick</div><div><br><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote">
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>></span=
> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
It seems to me the fastest path to very secure, very-hard-to-lose<br>
bitcoin wallets is multi-signature transactions.<br>
<br>
To organize this discussion: first, does everybody agree?<br>
<br>
ByteCoin pointed to a research paper that gives a scheme for splitting<br>
a private key between two people, neither of which every knows the<br>
full key, but, together, both can DSA-sign transactions. =A0That's very=
<br>
cool, but it involves high-end cutting-edge crypto like zero-knowledge<br>
proofs that I know very little about (are implementations available?<br>
are they patented? =A0have they been thoroughly vetted/tested? =A0etc).<br>
So I'm assuming that is NOT the fastest way to solving the problem.<br>
<br>
If anybody has some open-source, patent-free, thoroughly-tested code<br>
that already does DSA-key-splitting, speak up please.<br>
<br>
<br>
I've been trying to get consensus on low-level 'standard' trans=
actions<br>
for transactions that must be signed by 2 or 3 keys; current draft<br>
proposal is here:<br>
=A0<a href=3D"https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f</a><br>
and discussion on the forums here:<br>
=A0<a href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D38928.0" target=3D"=
_blank">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D38928.0</a><br>
... and there is a pull request that is relevant here:<br>
=A0<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/319" target=3D"_blank=
">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/319</a><br>
<br>
<br>
I still think it is a good idea to enable a set of new 'standard'<b=
r>
multisignature transactions, so they get relayed and included into<br>
blocks. =A0I don't want to let "the perfect become the enemy of th=
e<br>
good" -- does anybody disagree?<br>
<br>
The arguments against are that if the proposed standard transactions<br>
are accepted, then the next step is to define a new kind of bitcoin<br>
address that lets coins be deposited into a multisignature-protected<br>
wallet.<br>
<br>
And those new as-yet-undefined bitcoin addresses will have to be 2 or<br>
3 times as big as current bitcoin addresses, and will be incompatible<br>
with old clients.<br>
<br>
So, if we are going to have new releases that are incompatible with<br>
old clients why not do things right in the first place, implement or<br>
enable opcodes so the new bitcoin addresses can be small, and schedule<br>
a block chain split for N months from now.<br>
<br>
My biggest worry is we'll say "Sure, it'll only take a couple =
days to<br>
agree on how to do it right" and six months from now there is still no=
<br>
consensus on exactly which digest function should be used, or whether<br>
or not there should be a new opcode for arbitrary boolean expressions<br>
involving keypairs. =A0And people's wallets continue to get lost or<br>
stolen.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
--<br>
Gavin Andresen<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K<br>
The only unified storage solution that offers unified management<br>
Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient.<br>
Guaranteed. <a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev" target=3D"_blan=
k">http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--90e6ba6e83f031e65a04ab41cead--
|
