From: "Michael Grønager" <gronager@ceptacle•com>
To: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] multisig, op_eval and lock_time/sequence...
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:55:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CBFE8E7C-7A30-4450-A111-4EB413E068DF@ceptacle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EBB3E68.6060402@gmail.com>
Hi Alan,
I have now read BIP0010 - one first idea is: add a link to it on the wiki (or remove all bip links from the wiki... - we don't want two places for BIPs...)
I am not sure where you prefer the discussion on the content of the BIP - but now you get it here, but feel free to redirect...
Likes:
* inclusion of prevout txout scripts - could prove handy
* that it is a proposal to do this similarly on all clients
Dislikes:
* the format - I guess I would prefer a normal JSON format - where the scripts gets populated step by step. As for the scriptPubKey (now an awful name...) it would be easy to just add it to the JSON, or have the prevouts simply be the actual txouts instead of {hash,n}.
Comments:
* it is good to have this proposal, but I think that once we see ways to communicate it they could very well radically steer how a format should look. Take e.g. the discussion we had with Gavin yesterday, if we had chosen to move in that direction BIP0010 would had been useless. So perhaps a bit premature?
Cheers,
Michael
On 10/11/2011, at 04:00, Alan Reiner wrote:
> The purpose of creating BIP 0010 now, is to encourage a standard that developers want to adopt, from the outset. Every developer who is planning to touch multi-signature transactions, is going to have to solve the problem of multi-sig tx exchanges, eventually. By offering an excellent solution before they've started asking the question, there's a good chance people will use it. Hear me out...
>
> Protocols get fragmented when there's multiple competing ways to do something, each having some advantages the others don't have. This leads to developers with differing priorities picking different ones, or creating their own. However, I believe that the problem BIP 0010 seeks to solve is a fairly straightforward problem. There's not a lot of variety in the solutions that could compete against it. People just need a way to pass this data around, and they want it to be as convenient to use, and as easy to implement as possible. In that sense, I think BIP 0010 (or some future variant) is fairly optimal as a building block for higher-level protocols.
>
> If anyone has ideas for why someone would want to create a competing idea to BIP 0010 (besides not being aware of it when they start), I'd like to discuss it. I'm fairly confident that any such ideas could just be added to BIP 0010 and thus reset the question of why anyone would need a competing idea.
>
>
>
> On 11/09/2011 03:03 PM, Michael Grønager wrote:
>> My main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that they might never be standard (I think a great number of clients will emerge - and this would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the p2p network it will be a seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, even across different clients. But I share your concern on the
>>
>> /M
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> RSA(R) Conference 2012
> Save $700 by Nov 18
> Register now
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Michael Gronager, PhD
Owner Ceptacle / NDGF Director, NORDUnet A/S
Jens Juels Gade 33
2100 Copenhagen E
Mobile: +45 31 62 14 01
E-mail: gronager@ceptacle•com
Michael Gronager, PhD
Owner Ceptacle / NDGF Director, NORDUnet A/S
Jens Juels Gade 33
2100 Copenhagen E
Mobile: +45 31 62 14 01
E-mail: gronager@ceptacle•com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-10 9:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-09 10:22 Michael Grønager
2011-11-09 14:43 ` Alan Reiner
2011-11-09 15:22 ` Alan Reiner
2011-11-09 19:13 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-11-09 20:02 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-11-09 20:31 ` Michael Grønager
2011-11-09 21:18 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-11-09 21:32 ` Joel Joonatan Kaartinen
2011-11-09 22:13 ` theymos
2011-11-09 20:03 ` Michael Grønager
2011-11-10 3:00 ` Alan Reiner
2011-11-10 9:55 ` Michael Grønager [this message]
2011-11-10 12:56 ` Alan Reiner
2011-11-12 16:58 ` Mike Hearn
2011-11-12 17:10 ` Alan Reiner
2011-11-12 17:16 ` Mike Hearn
2011-11-12 17:25 ` Alan Reiner
2011-11-12 17:38 ` Mike Hearn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CBFE8E7C-7A30-4450-A111-4EB413E068DF@ceptacle.com \
--to=gronager@ceptacle$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=etotheipi@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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