Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 10:34:33 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: 2 questions about this P2SH thing  (Read 2504 times)
Maged
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
January 25, 2012, 05:13:01 AM
 #21

But if they decided to bring the issue into the forums and ask the users - they should do that properly , and not create a client with a default "i am voting for the change".
Again, the vote has come and gone. That's what's frustrating. The new clients do NOT say "i am voting for the change", but rather, "I am ready for the change". Just a few weeks ago P2SH had complete consensus among the developers. Now, however, this is being painted as a conspiracy, forcing the development process to spill out into the general public... over semantics. I kid you not, but to the end user, BIP 16 and 17 are exactly the same. In fact, most developers don't need to care. The only people this decision affects are the people who work with the scripting system.

I use to be against BIP 16 (P2SH), but Gavin's understanding of it, along with the fact that this is how it should have been done in the first place (ScriptSig should really have originally been just a script hash in Satoshi's initial design) changed my mind.

1481150073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481150073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481150073
Reply with quote  #2

1481150073
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481150073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481150073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481150073
Reply with quote  #2

1481150073
Report to moderator
1481150073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481150073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481150073
Reply with quote  #2

1481150073
Report to moderator
1481150073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481150073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481150073
Reply with quote  #2

1481150073
Report to moderator
jake262144
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
January 25, 2012, 05:17:07 AM
 #22

I am running my own bitcoind...

Good for you, congrats. I'm running my own too.
p2pool? Even better for you and the whole bitcoin universe. *big hug*

Let's not call it anyone's fault. It's nigh impossible for anyone outside the core dev team to tell apart the actual implementation merits from devs merely clashing their egos and stretching their muscles.

Luke's code implementing op_chc looks gorgeous (as I said, he is a brilliant programmer) but not only did it appear very late in the game but also having a look at the C implementation is far from being able to spot any potential flaws (including lethal flaws able to kill Bitcoin altogether).

Also, mind you the devs are actively debating the future of BIP17 and might opt not to proceed with BIP16 if they find Luke's proposal significantly better (and they can't agree it actually is any better).

You can't stop any programming project and derail its time table just because one of the programmers has come up with some arguably better code which will require a lot of additional work and delays. The devs want multiple signatures enabled yesterday, even should the resulting code be less elegant.
Costia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 05:26:52 AM
 #23

Quote
The devs want multiple signatures enabled yesterday, even should the resulting code be less elegant.

This is exactly my problem...
They wont get fired if they delay the schedule by a few months or even a year.
This change is supposed to stay in the system for as long as it exists. Not using a possibly better solution that will need to work for decades because you didn't want to delay the schedule by a few months sounds silly to me.

Another concern i have is compatibility. some people will be using an older client. If you asked me, first i would have released a client that can properly validate P2SH but will refuse to create such transactions, and only a few months later release a client that can actually create such transactions. This way the clients will have to be 2 versions and about 4-6 months behind the current version to be affected in any way by this change.
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 05:38:34 AM
 #24

Quote
The devs want multiple signatures enabled yesterday, even should the resulting code be less elegant.

This is exactly my problem...
They wont get fired if they delay the schedule by a few months or even a year.
This change is supposed to stay in the system for as long as it exists. Not using a possibly better solution that will need to work for decades because you didn't want to delay the schedule by a few months sounds silly to me.

Another concern i have is compatibility. some people will be using an older client. If you asked me, first i would have released a client that can properly validate P2SH but will refuse to create such transactions, and only a few months later release a client that can actually create such transactions. This way the clients will have to be 2 versions and about 4-6 months behind the current version to be affected in any way by this change.

Seriously man, go do some reading.

The master branch on github can process P2SH transactions today, but doesn't create them.  There will need to be huge changes in the wallet and UI before any P2SH transactions can actually be created except through custom tools and/or hand crafting.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
Costia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 05:47:52 AM
 #25

can the 0.5.2 client validate p2sh transactions?
who the hell installs their client from the latest github source?

Edit:
consider the following scenario:
2 non techie bitcoin users who dont read the forums. user A has 0.6.0 user B has 0.5.2
User A buys something from user B
User A: "i have sent you the money" (using p2sh)
User B: "no you didnt. i dont see anything in my wallet. I am doing a charge back/recall of my product"
now both users think the other is a scammer...
jake262144
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
January 25, 2012, 05:52:46 AM
 #26

This is exactly my problem...
They wont get fired if they delay the schedule by a few months or even a year.
Think October. No, not The Hunt for Red October. Last October. The devs have been at it since last October!
Costia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 05:58:59 AM
 #27

This is exactly my problem...
They wont get fired if they delay the schedule by a few months or even a year.
Think October. No, not The Hunt for Red October. Last October. The devs have been at it since last October!
then the wiki is misleading...
It states that P2SH was created on Jan 3 ( I assumed it wasnt tested on testcoin before that time)
I am not talking about months of development - i am talking about months of practical testing on testnet
jake262144
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
January 25, 2012, 06:05:18 AM
 #28

Ok, I'll be more precise for you:
The devs have been working at multi-sig implementations since last October.
The previous implementation, specified as BIP12 (OP_EVAL) nearly made Bitcoin self-aware as it unintentionally made the Script language turing-complete  Grin
Unwilling to risk another Skynet, the devs quickly shot, staked, and buried OP_EVAL, and recycled the sanitized code as BIP16.
Better now?

EDIT::Seriously, don't hold this against me but the fact that I need to explain all of this to you means that we probably shouldn't have wasted time on this conversation.
         You're accusing the dev team of rushing the code without being aware of the time table? Come on...

EDIT::To make up for their total lack of purpose, I tried to make my posts at least enjoyable to read - hence all those bad jokes.
Maged
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
January 25, 2012, 06:06:29 AM
 #29

can the 0.5.2 client validate p2sh transactions?
who the hell installs their client from the latest github source?
As soon as the miners are ready, the plan is to release general binary updates. The only reason that hasn't been done yet is because the only people that matter for supporting this are the big pools, and they all know how to compile from source.

Edit:
consider the following scenario:
2 non techie bitcoin users who dont read the forums. user A has 0.6.0 user B has 0.5.2
User A buys something from user B
User A: "i have sent you the money" (using p2sh)
This step is not possible without a bunch of manual work. User B would have had to provide a P2SH address, and those don't even officially exist yet.

Costia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 06:20:59 AM
 #30

Ok, I'll be more precise for you:
The devs have been working at multi-sig implementations since last October.
The previous implementation, specified as BIP12 (OP_EVAL) nearly made Bitcoin self-aware as it unintentionally made the Script language turing-complete  Grin
Unwilling to risk another Skynet, the devs quickly shot, staked, and buried OP_EVAL, and recycled the sanitized code as BIP16.
Better now?

EDIT::Seriously, don't hold this against me but the fact that I need to explain all of this to you means that we probably shouldn't have wasted time on this conversation.
         You're accusing the dev team of rushing the code without being aware of the time table? Come on...

EDIT::To make up for their total lack of purpose, I tried to make my posts at least enjoyable to read - hence all those bad jokes.
nope
it still means that BIP16 is less than a month old
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 06:30:30 AM
 #31

This is exactly my problem...
They wont get fired if they delay the schedule by a few months or even a year.
Think October. No, not The Hunt for Red October. Last October. The devs have been at it since last October!
then the wiki is misleading...
It states that P2SH was created on Jan 3 ( I assumed it wasnt tested on testcoin before that time)
I am not talking about months of development - i am talking about months of practical testing on testnet

Yes, this was tested on the test network, after being tested on a virtual test network.

Code:
root@inana:/usr/src/bitcoin-0.5.2-linux# grep -i subsidy `find -type f`
./src/src/main.cpp:    int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
./src/src/main.cpp:    // Subsidy is cut in half every 4 years
./src/src/main.cpp:    nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
./src/src/main.cpp:    return nSubsidy + nFees;
root@inana:/usr/src/bitcoin-0.5.2-linux# grep -i P2SH `find -type f`
root@inana:/usr/src/bitcoin-0.5.2-linux#

0.5.2 does not include P2SH.  To register a vote for P2SH, you have to go out of your way to do it by building from git.  The presence of /P2SH/ in a coinbase can be taken as pretty strong evidence of two things.  First, that a mining node with a decent amount of hashing power is capable of mining blocks with transactions that include P2SH, and second that someone actually intended to make their support public.  For a few days, it was possible to grab the master branch and compile it with P2SH support without knowing, but that was a while ago, and like you said:

who the hell installs their client from the latest github source?

The answer is "almost no one", and that is the whole point.  If enough of the hashing power goes out of their way to include /P2SH/ in their coinbases, we are ready to move forward.  Otherwise, there is no point working on the other stuff that will be needed before it can actually be used.

And I'm going to merge two replies that popped up while I was typing this. 

Edit:
consider the following scenario:
2 non techie bitcoin users who dont read the forums. user A has 0.6.0 user B has 0.5.2
User A buys something from user B
User A: "i have sent you the money" (using p2sh)
This step is not possible without a bunch of manual work. User B would have had to provide a P2SH address, and those don't even officially exist yet.

Seriously, don't hold this against me but the fact that I need to explain all of this to you means that we probably shouldn't have wasted time on this conversation.

Please, please, please go read up on this before you ask anything else.  This is a complicated topic, and there is no shame in not knowing how it all works, but your posts strongly suggest that you also haven't bothered to do even minimal research on the subject.  Your question about the potential scam is pretty troubling, since user B is the scammer, so it doesn't matter what version of the client he is using, and user A will see the payment as plain as day.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
Costia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 06:46:56 AM
 #32

ok. let me state my concern more clearly:

my concern is not about the technical details of the BIPXX. the devs will be far more capable than me in pointing out possible issues.
I have no intention of becoming a bitcoin dev or spending hours/days to got through all the nuances of the existing and proposed code. That's the dev's job.
my concern is that it is a major change and it was tested for less than a month on the test network.
my concern is that there might be a better solution that is discarded due to the release schedule, without getting the deserved attention.

I have suggested a way to make sure that any changes to the client will go smoothly even if a dev misses some specific issue which might arise. This decision is totally up to the devs. i just wanted to point out that the option exists.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!