📅 Original date posted:2011-10-26
🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen proposes that CHECKMULTISIG becomes a standard transaction type, and OP_EVAL is not mandatory.
📝 Original message:On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Michael Grønager <gronager at ceptacle.com> wrote:
> I think it is a very important feature to be able to extract transaction to/from you only from your private keys.
Why? If somebody is sending me bitcoins, then they'll have to get
either an address or one or more public keys from me. OP_EVAL just
lets me give them a short address that represents an arbitrary number
of keys combined in an arbitrary way.
I agree with Gregory: it shouldn't matter if that address is
HASH(public key) or HASH(op_eval_script), the issues are the same (if
you lose or cannot re-create the key/script then you're in trouble).
Maybe I'm missing something; are you worried that blockexplorer won't
know that coins sent to HASH(op_eval_script) are actually a
complicated transaction until the coins are spent again? I'd consider
that a feature, not a bug, because only the people involved in the
transaction need to know the details until after the transaction is
complete.
Feel free to contact me about your 'tiered implementation for thin
clients' -- I don't think OP_EVAL will make that significantly harder.
I also agree with Alan: using OP_EVAL is not mandatory, I'm proposing
that CHECKMULTISIG becomes a standard transaction type.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s4…d44kw
2023-06-07 02:35:42
in reply to nevent1q…vl0r
Author Public Key
npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwPublished at
2023-06-07 02:35:42Event JSON
{
"id": "c341b5b03ed62db5c6824515674ccef6c6598cd46e705bb32bfbb8f795abbee7",
"pubkey": "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4",
"created_at": 1686105342,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"38ab95ef62f6301977f9dec6ff3b1f25746d558345bec15abbd412157a28a77b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c5f62b8a9eb5180dbb0a20e6138a56edf8cc074f6fd8ce83fbfca28dbcdb2746",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-10-26\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen proposes that CHECKMULTISIG becomes a standard transaction type, and OP_EVAL is not mandatory.\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Michael Grønager \u003cgronager at ceptacle.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I think it is a very important feature to be able to extract transaction to/from you only from your private keys.\n\nWhy? If somebody is sending me bitcoins, then they'll have to get\neither an address or one or more public keys from me. OP_EVAL just\nlets me give them a short address that represents an arbitrary number\nof keys combined in an arbitrary way.\n\nI agree with Gregory: it shouldn't matter if that address is\nHASH(public key) or HASH(op_eval_script), the issues are the same (if\nyou lose or cannot re-create the key/script then you're in trouble).\n\nMaybe I'm missing something; are you worried that blockexplorer won't\nknow that coins sent to HASH(op_eval_script) are actually a\ncomplicated transaction until the coins are spent again? I'd consider\nthat a feature, not a bug, because only the people involved in the\ntransaction need to know the details until after the transaction is\ncomplete.\n\nFeel free to contact me about your 'tiered implementation for thin\nclients' -- I don't think OP_EVAL will make that significantly harder.\n\nI also agree with Alan: using OP_EVAL is not mandatory, I'm proposing\nthat CHECKMULTISIG becomes a standard transaction type.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen",
"sig": "907fcfec0ca399bf034c327fb507abb90ce7ff8b544e392e6fd0c576fd86ed3b49d4f68518160d2e1225cca3a0a2e7668d0e3f0a0cbd2deb264841d7325c5df2"
}