# Gavin Andresen
# 2012-08-25 16:05:18
# https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103172.msg1132207#msg1132207

@s{quotedtext}
@s{quotedtext}
 @p{brk}
I don't think a new signature algorithm doesn't require a hard fork; redefine an OP_NOP as OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY2 that uses ed25519, create a new 'standard' transaction type that uses that new opcode, and a new bitcoin address type that corresponds to it, then start by rolling out miner support, etc. as sketched out @p{(link}here@p{link)}. @p{par}

That would probably be better than a hard fork; I'm not sure what the transition plan would look like for old transactions if OP_CHECKSIG was redefined to use the ed25519 curve. @p{par}

If the new transaction type was significantly cheaper, then cheaper transaction fees could incentivize people to upgrade their clients/wallets. @p{par}

I don't think now is the right time to do any of that, mostly because I wouldn't be surprised if some solution for instant "off the chain" payments is adopted instead, in which case perhaps sep256k1 transaction cost will be negligible. @p{brk}