Bitcoin Forum
May 11, 2024, 02:46:01 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Is there any limitation of P2SH?  (Read 189 times)
polaker (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 3


View Profile
January 11, 2020, 08:26:06 AM
 #1

I just got this thought experiment in my head: can we live only with P2SH?

I like the succinct P2SH approach. It sounds perfect if all the scripts could be done in this way.

Let's ignore segwit for this experiment Smiley
1715438761
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715438761

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715438761
Reply with quote  #2

1715438761
Report to moderator
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a higher transaction fee.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
polaker (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 3


View Profile
January 11, 2020, 11:42:06 AM
Last edit: January 11, 2020, 01:50:14 PM by polaker
 #2

Let's start with something obvious,
1. Maximum Bitcoin script is 40000 weight (or 10000 bytes before SegWit activiation)
2. Non-turing complete Opcode

I meant to compare P2SH with all other possible Bitcoin scripts. My bad, I did not express it clear enough.

The first point about script size still stands. Is there any good&useful example on-chain that uses many bytes close to the limits?

Thanks!
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 4172
Merit: 8419



View Profile WWW
January 11, 2020, 08:32:05 PM
Merited by ABCbits (1), darosior (1)
 #3

Multisigs with more than 15 participants is the most common...

But BC1 addresses don't have this limit, and if you're doing something big you'll want that in any case for efficiency sake.

P2SH is antiquated now, not the best place to look for novel functionality.

aplistir
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 197



View Profile
January 12, 2020, 06:49:08 AM
 #4

I just got this thought experiment in my head: can we live only with P2SH?

I like the succinct P2SH approach. It sounds perfect if all the scripts could be done in this way.

That made me have an interesting thought.
Could P2SH be quantum safe? As it is NOT based on public keys, which are weak with QC.

P2SH is antiquated now, not the best place to look for novel functionality.

Antiquated? I thought that P2SH is still the only way to do your own "creative" scripts that will be accepted by the network. Like the first implementation of segwith showed.

My Address: 121f7zb2U4g9iM4MiJTDhEzqeZGHzq5wLh
darosior
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 279
Merit: 435


View Profile
January 12, 2020, 03:35:53 PM
Merited by ABCbits (1)
 #5

Antiquated? I thought that P2SH is still the only way to do your own "creative" scripts that will be accepted by the network. Like the first implementation of segwit showed.
It's P2WSH, hence the point about BC1 addresses.
TechPriest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 377
Merit: 282


Finis coronat opus


View Profile
January 12, 2020, 04:00:51 PM
 #6

Could P2SH be quantum safe? As it is NOT based on public keys, which are weak with QC.

Not, this is not quantum safe the same as P2PKH. Because it based on public keys, you provide them in your scriptsig of redeem script.

1. Maximum Bitcoin script is 40000 weight (or 10000 bytes before SegWit activiation)


If i remember right, P2SH redeem script is just 520 byte of space.

In science we trust!
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!