From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to schedule a blockchain split?
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:30:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110826213009.GA22361@ulyssis.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0OyKSqEZj3UF0ArKFePuTi_HyM2_OZA8zXO5Uf+bAZwA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 01:09:37PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > On the github pull request I posted a general scheme that can convert arbitrary
> > expressions over signature-checks (given in RPL notation) to bitcoin scripts.
> > Maybe we can define an address type that encodes an expression in RPL form (which
> > should be more compact and more easily parseable)?
>
> What are the use cases for this?
>
> From a mobile apps perspective, it doesn't make much sense to have
> arbitrary scripts in a user-facing address. The software has to be
> able to present some kind of reasonable user interface given an
> address, it has to explain what is going to happen to the users money
> and so on. From this perspective, doing pattern matching against some
> encoded script template is annoying and inefficient. It'd be better to
> just define another type of URI for each kind of transaction you wish
> to support. This is doubly true because often to do the more
> interesting contracts, you need out of band protocols, so the
> "address" would probably specify some information that's not in the
> final output script, like a rendezvous point.
You're quite right - currently addresses encode a particular output script,
and the client pattern matches to know how to deal with the incoming funds.
It's far from sure this will remain the case in the future. Maybe we'll have
an out of band protocol over which a request "i want to pay you for item X"
is sent, with the required transaction output as answer.
A generic way for encoding complex transaction scripts in a compact form may
be useful for "manual" playing with them - but I agree that we should
probably wait for a use case for this.
Independent from the question of complex-script-addresses are useful, I do
think it is useful (and possible, see pull req) to allow a class of scripts
that represent boolean expressions over signature checks to pass the
IsStandard() test - that way we make sure that whenever in the future we
want to support creating such an expression, there will at least be a to
encode it in a way that the network will accept it. The only question is
what possible problems there are with accepting them.
--
Pieter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-26 21:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-25 20:14 Pieter Wuille
2011-08-26 11:09 ` Mike Hearn
2011-08-26 21:30 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-08-24 16:18 Pieter Wuille
2011-08-24 16:26 ` Luke-Jr
2011-08-24 15:12 Gavin Andresen
2011-08-24 15:17 ` Rick Wesson
2011-08-24 15:45 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-08-24 15:55 ` Rick Wesson
2011-08-24 16:05 ` Douglas Huff
2011-08-24 16:15 ` Luke-Jr
2011-08-24 16:46 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-08-24 17:03 ` Luke-Jr
2011-08-24 17:07 ` Rick Wesson
2011-08-24 17:19 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-08-24 17:40 ` Rick Wesson
2011-08-24 17:57 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-08-24 18:45 ` Jeff Garzik
2011-08-25 7:39 ` Michael Grønager
2011-08-25 17:18 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-08-26 10:50 ` Mike Hearn
2011-08-27 1:36 ` bgroff
2011-08-25 18:31 ` Gregory Maxwell
[not found] ` <20110825201026.GA21380@ulyssis.org>
2011-08-25 20:29 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-08-25 21:06 ` Pieter Wuille
2011-08-24 17:03 ` theymos
2011-08-24 17:47 ` bgroff
2011-08-24 19:05 ` Christian Decker
2011-08-24 20:29 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-08-24 22:27 ` Douglas Huff
2011-08-25 21:30 ` Christian Decker
2011-08-26 11:42 ` Mike Hearn
2011-08-26 19:44 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-08-27 1:15 ` bgroff
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110826213009.GA22361@ulyssis.org \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox