Let's put it clear for everyone then:
PIP 11: It's already in the protocol but we need support from everyone (GUIs, webpages) to arbitrary-sized addresses such as this one: 1TM1TTodZRiGNY23hgEW4QLroBW5By2gF1FQBwst7BEGPvS3gVh6PuqF5yNPtLFFFy71NzC2bZEX7mU jMJAb8wh6tPVpQeMCcu68F
PIP 16/17: They're too similar the more I read them. It requires protocol changes but they will allow to have regular-sized addresses which redeems the money with several signatures instead of a single one. It also allows much more complex transactions while the address stays the same size. It allows space savings in the block chain.
We can have escrow right now with PIP 11 (it just needs GUI support), but not secure multisig-by-default wallets, as DeathAndTaxes says.
Topic: WHY CHANGE(aka BIP hell)? - page 3. (Read 10308 times)
BIP 16/17 is what makes BIP 11 USEFUL in the real world.
ever heard of send to self?Which provides no security. Any trojan or wallet stealer would simply intercept the funds sent to "insecure" addresses. If the addresses are secure well you didn't need multi-sig anyways.
Plus multi-sig usefulness goes way beyond just secure wallets. However w/ BIP 11 the entity "paying the cost" isn't the entity getting the benefit. It is non-viable from an economics standpoint and likely to significantly increase rate of blockchain bloat if it is.
BIP 16/17 is what makes BIP 11 USEFUL in the real world.
ever heard of send to self? After much thought I came to realize what's the main purpose of PIP 16/17 while we already have PIP 11: The reason is secure wallets that are always multisig without superlong addresses. We'll also have space savings in the chain.
We need PIP 16/17 but what's urgent is PIP 11 in client GUIs.
We need PIP 16/17 but what's urgent is PIP 11 in client GUIs.
No we don't. BIP 11 is dead on arrival.
The receiver gets all the benefit and the senders pays for it. WTF?
You ask me to pay you with some super long address and I will say NOPE.
You try to cashout from Mt. Gox to some super long address and they will say NOPE.
You open an online store and try to get customers to pay to some super logn address and they will say NOPE.
BIP 16/17 is what makes BIP 11 USEFUL in the real world.
After much thought I came to realize what's the main purpose of PIP 16/17 while we already have PIP 11: The reason is secure wallets that are always multisig without superlong addresses. We'll also have space savings in the chain.
We need PIP 16/17 but what's urgent is PIP 11 in client GUIs.
We need PIP 16/17 but what's urgent is PIP 11 in client GUIs.
Those "fancy features" are, in my humble opinion, the killer features that will guarantee bitcoin's success. It requires the consensus of the network, however.
I couldn't agree more. Bitcoin without these features is still pretty "killer"…but these features are really going to set it apart from everything else.There are already a couple threads discussing this. Have you read them?
Ok, I misread PIP 11 the first time. Then why they're pushing PIP 16/17 so hard? While I think it will be needed, I don't think it's a priority. The first thing we need is GUI support for what we already have.
Those "fancy features" are, in my humble opinion, the killer features that will guarantee bitcoin's success. It requires the consensus of the network, however.
I couldn't agree more. Bitcoin without these features is still pretty "killer"…but these features are really going to set it apart from everything else.
Those "fancy features" are, in my humble opinion, the killer features that will guarantee bitcoin's success. It requires the consensus of the network, however.
I couldn't agree more. Bitcoin without these features is still pretty "killer"…but these features are really going to set it apart from everything else. Tell me how we can do m-of-n signatures, or escrow without trusting a third party (or with a third party only in case of dispute).
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0011.
Tell me how we can do m-of-n signatures, or escrow without trusting a third party (or with a third party only in case of dispute).
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0011.
OP_CHECKMULTISIG, please explain the reason to change the protocol in a non compatible way
people should protect their bitcoin better, it is not a good reason for protocol change.
people should protect their bitcoin better, it is not a good reason for protocol change.
Tell me how we can do m-of-n signatures, or escrow without trusting a third party (or with a third party only in case of dispute).
Those "fancy features" are, in my humble opinion, the killer features that will guarantee bitcoin's success. It requires the consensus of the network, however.
please read the actual proposal. it will tell you the reasons for implementing it.
can you please explain it to me, so even my small unintelligent mind can understand it?i have been using bitcoin for some time, i have never got my wallet stolen.
you people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.
>this problem never occurred to me, therefore it doesn't exist at allyou people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.
I think it's pretty simple:
Many people *have* had their bitcoins stolen, and this is a problem that we need to address before we can expect widespread bitcoin adoption.
Multikey is a very important feature, that will allow better services to emerge, which will drive further bitcoin adoption.
people should protect their bitcoin better, it is not a good reason for protocol change.
Quote
Gavin is doing a great job, and you should show him some respect.
i do, when he is not acting like a child. P2SH is childish. 
please read the actual proposal. it will tell you the reasons for implementing it.
can you please explain it to me, so even my small unintelligent mind can understand it?i have been using bitcoin for some time, i have never got my wallet stolen.
you people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.
>this problem never occurred to me, therefore it doesn't exist at allyou people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.
I think it's pretty simple:
Many people *have* had their bitcoins stolen, and this is a problem that we need to address before we can expect widespread bitcoin adoption.
Multikey is a very important feature, that will allow better services to emerge, which will drive further bitcoin adoption.
Gavin is doing a great job, and you should show him some respect.
please read the actual proposal. it will tell you the reasons for implementing it.
can you please explain it to me, so even my small unintelligent mind can understand it? i have been using bitcoin for some time, i have never got my wallet stolen.
you people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.
>this problem never occurred to me, therefore it doesn't exist at allyou people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.
please read the actual proposal. it will tell you the reasons for implementing it.
i have been using bitcoin for some time, i have never got my wallet stolen.
you people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.
>this problem never occurred to me, therefore it doesn't exist at all you people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.
DON'T FIX IT, IF IT'S NOT BROKEN.
yeah, allowing your wallet to be stolen is not broken. having to remember/transfer super long addresses is not broken 
you people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.
DON'T FIX IT, IF IT'S NOT BROKEN.
yeah, allowing your wallet to be stolen is not broken. having to remember/transfer super long addresses is not broken What? There are many flaws in bitcoin and Gavin is doing a great job of addressing them. I personally hope BIP 17 or a standard solution is decided on, but I would never hope that bitcoin remains unchanged. Bitcoin can become so much better than it is now.
agree, but they are right now introducing fancy features and bugs and flaws.these people are crazy you know?
What? There are many flaws in bitcoin and Gavin is doing a great job of addressing them. I personally hope BIP 17 or a standard solution is decided on, but I would never hope that bitcoin remains unchanged. Bitcoin can become so much better than it is now.
Jump to: