📅 Original date posted:2014-03-29
📝 Original message:On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 10:19 am, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> > Multisig does not allow for the topology I described. Say the board has seven directors, meaning the majority threshold is four. This means the organization needs the consent of six individuals in order to sign a transaction: the president, the CFO, and any four of the board members. A 6-of-9 multisig would not accomplish the same policy, as then any six board members could successfully sign a transaction without the consent of the president or CFO. Of course the multi-signature scheme could be expanded to allow for hierarchical threshold topologies, or Shamir's Secret Sharing can be used to distribute keys at the second level (and further, if desired).
>
> Disagree with "does not allow" Review bitcoin's script language.
>
> Bitcoin script can handle the use case you describe. Add conditionals
> to the bitcoin script, OP_IF etc. You can do 'multisig AND multisig'
> type boolean logic entirely in script, and be far more flexible than a
> single CHECKMULTISIG affords.
Depends on your definition of "can." Bitcoin's scripting language is awesome, but it's mostly useless due to the requirement that scripts match one of a select few "standard" templates in order to be allowed to propagate across the network and be mined into blocks. I really hate IsStandard and wish it would die.
Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] /
npub17q…upwet
2023-06-07 15:16:38
in reply to nevent1q…9xat
Author Public Key
npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetPublished at
2023-06-07 15:16:38Event JSON
{
"id": "224f39fc7b90aa21b60bbfc555086f6984f3dcf4e6afa05b4efb4447b211ce6a",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686150998,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cd470d06d90a3107c21da4b48b344ebdd3b4ab813362bb85b0e7a02311012700",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"104a68d6abf0b347c414b5d4d6180a10483f42155074839d034a03757bb644a8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-03-29\n📝 Original message:On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 10:19 am, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Matt Whitlock \u003cbip at mattwhitlock.name\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Multisig does not allow for the topology I described. Say the board has seven directors, meaning the majority threshold is four. This means the organization needs the consent of six individuals in order to sign a transaction: the president, the CFO, and any four of the board members. A 6-of-9 multisig would not accomplish the same policy, as then any six board members could successfully sign a transaction without the consent of the president or CFO. Of course the multi-signature scheme could be expanded to allow for hierarchical threshold topologies, or Shamir's Secret Sharing can be used to distribute keys at the second level (and further, if desired).\n\u003e \n\u003e Disagree with \"does not allow\" Review bitcoin's script language.\n\u003e \n\u003e Bitcoin script can handle the use case you describe. Add conditionals\n\u003e to the bitcoin script, OP_IF etc. You can do 'multisig AND multisig'\n\u003e type boolean logic entirely in script, and be far more flexible than a\n\u003e single CHECKMULTISIG affords.\n\nDepends on your definition of \"can.\" Bitcoin's scripting language is awesome, but it's mostly useless due to the requirement that scripts match one of a select few \"standard\" templates in order to be allowed to propagate across the network and be mined into blocks. I really hate IsStandard and wish it would die.",
"sig": "56f7ceb625477d82c4dfdcf28b6f265394ae7f951bebbf47dcb2f5b9edd159422b38c326d95b5f67e902664f5af1bd74109ad46dcb71a34ae2fc2f51d1768db9"
}