Dev Docs: Remove security confusion from P2SH intro

Somebody thought the paragraph being revised in this commit implied that
P2SH was implemented because P2PKH had security problems:

  http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/36695/21052
This commit is contained in:
David A. Harding 2015-04-01 09:07:02 -04:00
parent 936cfd6388
commit 2c1615e75b
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4B29C30FF29EC4B7

View file

@ -255,13 +255,13 @@ problems with it).
{% autocrossref %}
Pubkey scripts are created by spenders who have little interest in the
long-term security or usefulness of the particular satoshis they're
currently spending. Receivers do care about the conditions imposed on
the satoshis by the pubkey script and, if they want, they can ask
spenders to use a particular pubkey script. Unfortunately, custom
pubkey scripts are less convenient than short Bitcoin addresses and more
difficult to secure than P2PKH pubkey hashes.
Pubkey scripts are created by spenders who have little interest what
that script does. Receivers do care about the script conditions and, if
they want, they can ask spenders to use a particular pubkey script.
Unfortunately, custom pubkey scripts are less convenient than short
Bitcoin addresses and there was no standard way to communicate them
between programs prior to widespread implementation of the BIP70 Payment
Protocol discussed later.
To solve these problems, pay-to-script-hash
([P2SH][]{:#term-p2sh}{:.term}) transactions were created in 2012 to let