📅 Original date posted:2011-06-22
🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen suggests experimenting with MULTISIG transactions on testnet, proposing new standard script templates to support different signature combinations.
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> I think you can just use an output script of
> 2 <K1> <K2> <K3> 3 CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY
I think it is time to start experimenting with MULTISIG transactions on testnet.
Mike: Did Satoshi ever tell you what he was thinking for the best way
to implement MULTISIG transactions?
I'm wondering if hard-coding new standard script templates in
script.cpp Solver():
vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_1 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_2 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_2 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_2 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_1 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_PUBKEY << OP_3 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_2 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_PUBKEY << OP_3 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
vTemplates.push_back(CScript() << OP_3 << OP_PUBKEY << OP_PUBKEY <<
OP_PUBKEY << OP_3 << OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);
... would be the right approach to support 1/2 of 2 and 1/2/3 of 3
signatures. It'd be nice if there were generic
OP_N << OP_PUBKEY_N << OP_N ... template matching opcodes, but there aren't.
I'm also wondering if it makes sense to just support 2-of-2 (for
validate-on-multiple-devices) and 2-of-3 (for escrow) for now.
I think all of these could use a new type of bitcoin payment address;
it might make sense for THAT to be generic, maybe containing:
version byte
m
n
hash of xor of all n public keys
checksum
I'm most interested in the 2-of-2 case; I think merchants and
exchanges need bitcoin deposit/payment addresses that they can make
secure by requiring a 2-step signature process for spending those
funds.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
http://clearcoin.com/
Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s4…d44kw
2023-06-07 01:20:43
in reply to nevent1q…uk4u
Author Public Key
npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwPublished at
2023-06-07 01:20:43Event JSON
{
"id": "38bfed65b38dccf25b253725485b808459ee70e385494a768334e3e2b8e23f7d",
"pubkey": "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4",
"created_at": 1686100843,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"612f4757c0c09c2f3ac4514e7e313d4f65cedff61756b948c8a32794951343ac",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e2e7d5cd133099f371d644c544c77b2b572615f6dd6176f13cb6b6e8a334ad79",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fc38630711a8b1bf175abe9b428bbb6dec25a39bf3d75a91a411f204942572a4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-06-22\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen suggests experimenting with MULTISIG transactions on testnet, proposing new standard script templates to support different signature combinations.\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I think you can just use an output script of\n\u003e 2 \u003cK1\u003e \u003cK2\u003e \u003cK3\u003e 3 CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY\n\nI think it is time to start experimenting with MULTISIG transactions on testnet.\n\nMike: Did Satoshi ever tell you what he was thinking for the best way\nto implement MULTISIG transactions?\nI'm wondering if hard-coding new standard script templates in\nscript.cpp Solver():\n\n vTemplates.push_back(CScript() \u003c\u003c OP_1 \u003c\u003c OP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c OP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c\nOP_2 \u003c\u003c OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);\n vTemplates.push_back(CScript() \u003c\u003c OP_2 \u003c\u003c OP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c OP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c\nOP_2 \u003c\u003c OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);\n vTemplates.push_back(CScript() \u003c\u003c OP_1 \u003c\u003c OP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c OP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c\nOP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c OP_3 \u003c\u003c OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);\n vTemplates.push_back(CScript() \u003c\u003c OP_2 \u003c\u003c OP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c OP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c\nOP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c OP_3 \u003c\u003c OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);\n vTemplates.push_back(CScript() \u003c\u003c OP_3 \u003c\u003c OP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c OP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c\nOP_PUBKEY \u003c\u003c OP_3 \u003c\u003c OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY);\n\n... would be the right approach to support 1/2 of 2 and 1/2/3 of 3\nsignatures. It'd be nice if there were generic\nOP_N \u003c\u003c OP_PUBKEY_N \u003c\u003c OP_N ... template matching opcodes, but there aren't.\n\nI'm also wondering if it makes sense to just support 2-of-2 (for\nvalidate-on-multiple-devices) and 2-of-3 (for escrow) for now.\n\nI think all of these could use a new type of bitcoin payment address;\nit might make sense for THAT to be generic, maybe containing:\n version byte\n m\n n\n hash of xor of all n public keys\n checksum\n\nI'm most interested in the 2-of-2 case; I think merchants and\nexchanges need bitcoin deposit/payment addresses that they can make\nsecure by requiring a 2-step signature process for spending those\nfunds.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\nhttp://clearcoin.com/",
"sig": "045325a5f16f76a50f8034c46f2a734bfa8ce483c53904ce7fdafeef35a00f9f458e64bc25868bcf64a4c42dab61ffc930d25e13ccbb60690181d55a5921f21a"
}