On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Adam Back <a...@cypherspace.org> wrote: > I think you can do everything with the existing script level nlocktime > in some kind of turing completeness sense (maybe); but there is a > complexity cost that often you have to resort to extra dependent > transaction(s) (and work-around malleability until that is fully > fixed) just to get the effect.
Right, ... moreover, even with all the malleability fixes, they only work if you refrain from using certain features (e.g. cannot do an anyone-can-pay) and we cannot be completely sure all accidental vectors for malleability are gone (we've been unable to construct a proof that our strengthening of ECDSA turns it into a strong signature, though it seems likely). Having the locktime control in a scriptPubKey sidesteps all those limitations and simplifies protocols (e.g. not requiring some three step state machine and a bunch of risky validation code to be sure a refund you receive is actually workable). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
