It certainly wouldn't hurt if there was a way to use OP_MULTICHECKSIG with hash160 values instead... I doubt that's workable, though.
At the moment, I feel that the copy&paste size problem is much smaller than the risk we take implementing such a huge change to the network. I almost feel like, we should have multi-sig in place, thoroughly tested and available, as something to fall back on if something goes wrong with BIP 13/16/17 after implementation. After all, I've been promoting the idea of considering the "cost" to fixing an erroneous/insecure implementation, as consideration for the proposals at hand. But gmaxwell has expressed some compelling reasons why plain multi-sig might be abused, which maybe suggests we don't want it ever considered standard...? I guess I'm not really promoting one thing or another, but I feel like copy&pasting is not a big deal (after all, it exists to moving large amounts of data around). Then of course, I use home-shift-end all the time, and regular users may not be so adept at copying long strings. -Alan On 01/29/2012 12:10 AM, Amir Taaki wrote: > 2 compressed pubkeys > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Amir Taaki<zgen...@yahoo.com> > To: > "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:52 AM > Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Quote on BIP 16 > > Gavin said: > "Part of the controversy is whether really long bitcoin addresses would > work-- would it be OK if the new bitcoin addresses were really long and > looked something like this: > 57HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBE7HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBiTE7vVhaPaBE7Hr > (or possibly even longer) > > I've argued no: past 70 or so characters it becomes a lot harder to copy and > paste, a lot harder to scan an address with your eyes to see if you're paying > who you think you're paying, harder to create a readable QR code, harder to > upgrade website or database code that deals with bitcoin addresses, etc. > There is rough consensus that very-long addresses are not workable." > > How could you have a 70 byte long address without a P2SH scheme? Is this a > mistake? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Try before you buy = See our experts in action! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Try before you buy = See our experts in action! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
