On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:05:26PM +0000, John Dillon wrote: > Long-term we should be using P2SH with an inner OP_CHECKSIG for most addresses > as it's a 1 byte savings. Change addresses can have this done first, although > bitcoinj support will help so that satoshidice and similar sites can pay to > P2SH change. As for multisig's P2SH overhead for a 1-of-2 and 2-of-2 and > 3-of-3, is 10%, 8.6% and 6.2% respectively, all pretty minor, especially if > you > assume the blocksize limit will be raised.
Small comment: the current implementation in the reference client uses a custom script encoder for the UTXO database, which stores every (valid) send-to-pubkey as 33 bytes and every send-to-pubkeyhash or send-to-scripthash as 21 bytes. So for "standard" address payment, there is no storage impact of using P2SH instead. -- Pieter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
