Thank you this is very helpful.

Am I correct in thinking:

1. An m-of-n transaction is signed in series because the public keys are appended to the escrow form as each party signs so this total set of keys can be logged to the transaction in the blockchain? If this is the case then surely an overseer could have a selection of escrows sign in parallel and then collate these keys into the escrow form, thereby preventing each escrow of having any knowledge of who the other escrows are and what other keys are involved in the transaction?

2. Is there any way to see if a single private key goes with a multi-signature transaction? I.e. could an attacker try single keys from a multi-signature transaction in sequence to see if it is associated with a given multi-signature transaction or do all the keys have to be used together to see if they are for a given multi-signature transaction?

3. Assuming the latter is true for Q2, to undertake this brute-force attack is the attacker trying to match a single value generated from all the keys that is publicly viewable on the blockchain or do they have to submit a request to the network for each attempt?

4. I've read up on P2SH (pay-to-script-hash) but don't fully understand it yet. Is it a number (hash) representing all the signatures for a multi-signature transaction where just that number is stored on the blockchain, resultantly keeping the set of public keys used for that multi-signature transaction obfuscated?

Scenario:

A 20-of-20 transaction is set up.

This 20-of-20 transaction exists in a pool of 100 escrow agents. The other 80 escrow agents each hold a key for other separate m-of-n transactions.

A malicious entity somehow infiltrates this pool and is able to access all 100 escrow keys for the m-of-n transactions, where a sub set of 20 of the keys are for the 20-of-20 transaction in question.

Would the malicious entity be able to identify which of those 100 escrow keys were associated with the same 20-of-20 transaction? Or are the keys impossible to correlate if the entity does not know which transactions they relate to?

Thanks, so when the 20-of-20 transaction is set up do the escrows involved in it need to sign the 20-of-20 transaction request in series or can this be done in parallel?

So for a 20-of-20 transaction does the order of signing to access funds at the destination address matter?

If so this would be a large number of combinations if the order were not known.

Are the private keys formed by the escrows in series or parallel?

TalkingAntColony, malevolent and scintill; thank you very much - for a person who can only read source code to a rudimentary level these answers are very concise. Much appreciated.

A further question: if a 2-of-20 transaction was split up amongst 18 escrow (I assume 18 as two parties are transacting) and one of the two parties gained access to all 18 escrow's private-part-keys, without knowing the order the 2-of-20 transaction was signed in by the escrows: would the party with the part-private-keys be able to infer the order those keys needed to be reassembled in or would they have to try all the possible combinations?

My incomplete understanding of how m-of-n transactions work is that the public keys are split up and spread between the parties involved.

Satoshi, in his infinite wisdom, has abstracted this mechanism so that 'm' part-keys are required from a set of 'n' participants to be able to form the complete private key to be able to access the funds in a given address.

My question is: what are the upper limits on 'm' or 'n'?

If a limit does exist is this in any way connected to the fact that the private keys can only be divided so much?

Is there a ChinaCoin blockchain explorer? Just wondering if there is any way to see the number of coins mined per block.

What are series 3 Cassius coins?

I'm after any facts about this anyone can point me at. I had a bad 'feeling' about CNC when it launched, but trying to ascribe evidence to this would be beneficial IMO.

For example did the first blocks generate a lot of coins compared to later blocks?

Are IXcoin (IXC)'s development team still operating?

Are Chinacoin (CNC)'s development team still operating?

Does anyone know what happened to chinacoin? Did it have a massive reward for the first set of blocks and then drop off sharply thereafter?

From what I have been reading on the forums some alternative cryptocurrencies have been designed purely to provide the early adopters or those pre-mining in secret with a high number of coins to facilitate pump-and-dump like selling.

Which alternative cryptocurrencies have had these characteristics?

What other approaches have been used by alternative cryptocurrency developers to facilitate pump-and-dump like mechanisms or other ways of making money fast?

Which alternative cryptocurrencies have been abandoned after pumping-and-dumping or similar activities?

What evidence is there to prove any of these?

Conversely it would seem the alternative cryptocurrencies with good development teams seem to live long and prosper. There are a few out there I have a lot of respect for.

Very exciting presentation.

I don't think anybody should judge anyone for circumstance of birth, be they rich or poor, but by their actions.

This is great news!

These are listed as nodes, so I am also unsure if they are wallets and miner or just wallets. I suspect both but am not certain...

Using just the site bitnodes.io is there any way view the data for each run via the GUI on their website?

I'm trying to ascertain when China got to the top of the rankings? I want to provide this information in an easy to digest form.

I'm under the impression it happened in the last two weeks but would like to confirm this with actual data.

Thanks.

Interesting, thank you.

On that note, this is very encouraging:

http://bitnodes.io/

Check out china's ranking!

This site is BRILLIANT!

Thanks.