11
BIP 11 supports m-of-n transactions. While BIP 16 and BIP 17 are being debated and voted upon, I have to ask: why haven't there been evidence of BIP 11 used in for m-of-n transactions?
All that BIP 16 and BIP 17 do is shift the cost to the recipient. This is healthy for the long term cost structure, but it doesn't mean that BIP 11 style m-of-n transactions aren't usable today, does it?
Have it been used somewhere and I just don't know about it? Or is the current protocol not usable for m-of-n transactions?
1The point with BIP 16/17 isn't to shift the cost, that's at best an added bonus. The point is to make a consistent framework for all kinds of transactions, so the sender doesn't need his client to support each tx type, doesn't have to enter a long (and inconsistently formatted) address, and doesn't need to know how the receiver wants to use the output. – Meni Rosenfeld – 2012-01-31T05:42:43.513