Topic: Old P2SH debate thread (Read 19705 times)

Sadly this isn't true!  It has do to with the way in which the opcodes in the existing scripting system were disabled -- or perhaps more accurately "never enabled".

Existing clients treat any script containing a disabled opcode as invalid.  As a result, enabling a disabled opcode requires upgrading all clients (miners, exchanges, end-users, etc).

OP_EVAL/P2SH/CHV work because they transfer validity-checking responsibility from the end-user to the miners, resulting in a much smaller set of clients to upgrade.

I assumed it was tested on testnet but that's not real world enough.   People need to be able to use it day to day and give hackers time to pick it apart and find a flaw.  Remember the OP_EVAL and the flaw found after it was considered.

Both BIPs have been tested on Bitcoin's "testnet", and BIP 17 (formerly "CODEHASHCHECK") has been tested on the main Bitcoin network.

With that said, I would suggest this change be done on another block chain like Namecoin that does not have a large market cap and reputation to protect.  Changing another block chain gives you faster deployment of the new code and redeployment should a flaw be discovered.

0.1 BTC to the "shut up" address, is that what you mean?

Which one was it?

In my humble opinion, this kind of trash talk against BIP 16 is bad for Bitcoin.

Eheh, that was me, I don't need a refund though.

Someone sent some BTC to my "If you just want me to shut up pay me here:" address a few hours ago.  I just now saw this and apologize for not honoring it because of being unobservant.  I would be happy to refund it if you would like.  If so please PM me with the amount you donated and an address.
Thanks,
Sam

When I started with Bitcoin all I wanted to do was solo mine with a mid range GPU and just check my wallet 2 or 3 times a year.  That didn't work out.  But if it had worked out that way and a multi-sig was implemented while I had an old bitcoind running then I would have risked loosing my coins.  I think there are several people in that boat right now.  Bitcoin users shouldn't be forced to keep up on all of this minutia just to make sure their coins and transactions are protected.

I have take steps to protect my wallet and network.

I guess it's time to consider switching?


Maybe we will see a mass exodus from deepbit now? Or did you guys have a pool meeting?

What change are you fearing? AT THE VERY WORST, all that can happen is that new (OP_EVAL/P2SH/CHV) transactions have "something bad" (if anything?) happen to them. Existing transactions aren't changed and do not get affected by this.

Do pray tell, how? What are your significant contributions towards mitigating this issue?

You seem to have an irrational fear of a multi signature transaction type being widely implemented and made useable by a larger segment of users. Why?

This is certainly annoying (at best), but it isn't the end of the world. He is doing a great job of ignoring everyone

I do think changes should be avoided at all cost's, UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!  I understand there was a change the HAD to be made because of an actual flaw, that is/was appropriate.

This issue can be ameliorated in so many other ways, and is, that folks should question it a little more than they are.

I am not concerned about one pool effectively preventing the change by not voting for it and that is why I am mining there full time right now.  And if Tycho did start supporting BIP16 and the implementation was NOT a done deal I would mine elsewhere until it was implemented or defeated, granted at that point it wouldn't really make a difference except clear my conscience if things did go awry because of one of these multi-sig schemes.

I am much more concerned with the Bitcoin community trying to strong arm and badger a pool op into doing what they want and effectively take away my voice of dissension in the process.  That is very troubling to me.

I agree. We should be prudent when making changes that involve the block chain. That doesn't mean we should avoid them at all costs.

What's more concerning is that one pool can effectively stop such changes. While that may or may not be a good thing today, who knows what the future holds? Before you suggest that the miners are there because they support the pool op's position, consider what would happen if the pool op decided to support BIP16 today? Would there be a mass exodus? I highly doubt it. I doubt much would change at all. Would you make the effort to switch to a pool that aligns with your vote?

Bitcoin is money that is stored on computers and spent via the internet. Because I have to access the internet to spend my coins, there is potential risk. Adding features that make it more difficult for someone to steal coins is a worthwhile goal. There doesn't need to be a flaw in order to improve the system.

Automobiles work perfectly without airbags. People can travel from point A to point B without them. But airbags might save lives if there is an automobile accident. Would you argue that we shouldn't add airbags to cars because there is no flaw in the technology that prevents us from traveling from point A to point B?

Here's how I currently secure my Bitcoins. I create new wallets on a sterile offline computer and then send coins to them. This makes spending those coins troublesome, especially if I want to retain that level of security. I don't feel secure enough to allow myself easy access to spending my coins because I realize a simple key logger can defeat encrypted wallets.

Being able to choose how many different physical machines are required to spend my Bitcoins would make me feel much more comfortable when accessing my offline storage.

I try to practice safe computing habits as much as possible (keep OS and browers up to date, hardware and software firewall, avoid "sketchy" websites, etc.), but the threat of a compromised computer is unlike most threats because I probably won't see it coming until it's too late. With Bitcoins, once they are gone, there is no getting them back.

And this doesn't even speak of the other uses that multi-sig will enable. For example, shared addresses that require two (or more) parties' agreement to spend the coins. This kind of utility will allow Bitcoin to be adopted by more people in more places. Businesses with several owners can hold accounts that no one person can drain.

I don't know which multi-sig is the best, but normal users having access to the feature is something that should have been available from the start. As slow as it's going though, I'm planning on using Armory's offline transaction feature as my go-to security method in the future. I probably won't need multi-sig for uses other than security, but I certainly don't think that is the case for everyone.

In my humble opinion, this kind of trash talk against BIP 16 is bad for Bitcoin.

The poll in this thread says the community prefers BIP 16.

The chart on the bitcoin wiki says the core developers prefer BIP 16.

And the actions of the big mining pools and independent miners says that they overwhelmingly prefer BIP 16.

Luke, I'd be delighted to add Eligius to the list of pools that are supporting BIP 16 in my signature.