Author: Michael Gronager 2012-01-28 10:21:19
Published on: 2012-01-28T10:21:19+00:00
The author of this message is addressing Bitcoiners and discussing the various BIP suggestions for enabling multisignature transactions. However, they express frustration that the discussion is happening in at least five different forums and IRC. The author then presents some issues with BIP-16, specifically lines 265-269 in the reference implementation. They argue that it breaks the purpose of the network ID as it ties additional information into an address as a hack. In their previous argument for BIP-12 implementation, they expressed that this notification on an address level is not needed and should not be introduced. The author suggests that if more information is needed in a Bitcoin address, it could be cannibalized from the checksum. Currently, the checksum is four bytes, but it could be reduced to two or three bytes without breaking the current meaning of the network ID. This would have the same effect of ensuring that two different addresses are not mistaken for one another and creating a non-redeemable transaction. While the author sees BIP-17 as a step forward, they agree with Gavin's note on one of the forums that it behaves differently in input and output scripts, thus needing further work.
Updated on: 2023-06-05T01:58:07.757479+00:00