Ah, now IC the rational core of the concern, no need to bother theymos 
However... How does the receiver get to know what his fees will be like ?
Let's say I want you to send me an escrow-OP_EVAL transaction. I want you to send, like... oh, 5 BTC.
It would be very unkosher if there would be no way for me to know in advance what fee to expect "on my end" after the escrow authority signs stuff (oh noes, it ated 3 BTC out of 5!
)
However... How does the receiver get to know what his fees will be like ?
Let's say I want you to send me an escrow-OP_EVAL transaction. I want you to send, like... oh, 5 BTC.
It would be very unkosher if there would be no way for me to know in advance what fee to expect "on my end" after the escrow authority signs stuff (oh noes, it ated 3 BTC out of 5!
)I expect it'll be dependent on the size of the transaction needed to use the OP_EVAL output. That has to be known in advance, otherwise you can't create a spendable OP_EVAL output. Of course, the actual fees will depend on the democratic (well, more or less) decisions from the miners.
Well, as long as it essentially ends up being dependent on something deterministic - like "output"'s size, it should be fine.
I'd still prefer "new and brave" transactions to use a different address format though.