On 10/01/2015 03:00 PM, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> Finally, the multisig prefix is unnecessary in the case of stealth
> addresses, as the multisig nature of the address is determinable from
> its payload. It is however not unreasonable that the prefix should
> expose this differentiation.

I wasn't considering the "Non-P2SH-Multisig stealth" scenarios. In light
of this there is no redundancy in differentiating p2pkh and p2sh
versions. In fact this differentiation becomes necessary to distinguish
between the two multisig scenarios that exist when there is more than
one spend key. The current payment address is underspecified, and
aligning with non-stealth payment address versions resolves that fairly
significant problem.

e