{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2011-08-24\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Multi-signature transactions are the fastest way to secure Bitcoin wallets, but there is debate over implementing new standard transactions and addresses.\n📝 Original message:It seems to me the fastest path to very secure, very-hard-to-lose\nbitcoin wallets is multi-signature transactions.\n\nTo organize this discussion: first, does everybody agree?\n\nByteCoin pointed to a research paper that gives a scheme for splitting\na private key between two people, neither of which every knows the\nfull key, but, together, both can DSA-sign transactions.  That's very\ncool, but it involves high-end cutting-edge crypto like zero-knowledge\nproofs that I know very little about (are implementations available?\nare they patented?  have they been thoroughly vetted/tested?  etc).\nSo I'm assuming that is NOT the fastest way to solving the problem.\n\nIf anybody has some open-source, patent-free, thoroughly-tested code\nthat already does DSA-key-splitting, speak up please.\n\n\nI've been trying to get consensus on low-level 'standard' transactions\nfor transactions that must be signed by 2 or 3 keys; current draft\nproposal is here:\n https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f\nand discussion on the forums here:\n https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38928.0\n... and there is a pull request that is relevant here:\n https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/319\n\n\nI still think it is a good idea to enable a set of new 'standard'\nmultisignature transactions, so they get relayed and included into\nblocks.  I don't want to let \"the perfect become the enemy of the\ngood\" -- does anybody disagree?\n\nThe arguments against are that if the proposed standard transactions\nare accepted, then the next step is to define a new kind of bitcoin\naddress that lets coins be deposited into a multisignature-protected\nwallet.\n\nAnd those new as-yet-undefined bitcoin addresses will have to be 2 or\n3 times as big as current bitcoin addresses, and will be incompatible\nwith old clients.\n\nSo, if we are going to have new releases that are incompatible with\nold clients why not do things right in the first place, implement or\nenable opcodes so the new bitcoin addresses can be small, and schedule\na block chain split for N months from now.\n\nMy biggest worry is we'll say \"Sure, it'll only take a couple days to\nagree on how to do it right\" and six months from now there is still no\nconsensus on exactly which digest function should be used, or whether\nor not there should be a new opcode for arbitrary boolean expressions\ninvolving keypairs.  And people's wallets continue to get lost or\nstolen.\n\n\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen"}