Hi Pieter, > On Feb 25, 2017, at 4:14 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wui...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Any alternative to move us away from RIPEMD160 would require:
> <snipped> “Any alternative”? What about reverting to: [<public_key>, OP_CHECKSIG] or perhaps later [<“compressed” public_key>, OP_CHECKSIG] This appears to get away from the issue without introducing a lot of other concerns? (IIRC the RIPEMD thing was justified on convenience and compactness). Could that be the alternative? /s _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
