On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Alan Reiner <etothe...@gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > 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
Be careful not to conflate multisig _addresses_ and P2S with multisig output scripts in general. Of the issues I raised only the size of the potentially unprunable transaction outputs is an argument against multisig outputs which aren't getting packed up in addresses. Things like negotiated escrow arrangements can work okay either way. I think P2SH is still better for these for two reasons: Reasonable anti-spam behavior by network participant may make it hard to make large output scripts (see above), but this isn't an issue yet... and P2S(H) lets you use a separate escrow-maker tool for clients paying into escrow without any knowledge or support of escrow transactions in that client. This uncoupling is important both for general "feature velocity" as well as providing a uniform feature set across bitcoin services (e.g. you negotiate paying someone via escrow, you use a tool to make a mutually agreed escrow configuration, but your funds are in MTGOX— no issue if P2SH is widely used). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
