On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Michael Grønager <grona...@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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
