From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WNNal-0004dh-FB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:23:39 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.48; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-yh0-f48.google.com; Received: from mail-yh0-f48.google.com ([209.85.213.48]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WNNak-0000cT-O0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:23:39 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f48.google.com with SMTP id z6so8609092yhz.21 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:23:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.80.8 with SMTP id j8mr1317244yhe.151.1394547812674; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.133.195 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:23:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <531DFDF8.80008@gmail.com> <531E52FE.5090107@jerviss.org> <531E5454.1030601@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:23:32 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fb33dff332004f45576f9 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WNNak-0000cT-O0 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , kjj Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Multisign payment protocol? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:23:39 -0000 --20cf300fb33dff332004f45576f9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Sure, but I don't see wallets being able to _assume_ _remote_ parties > have an HD wallet for a long, long time. Interoperability common > sense implies the environment will be heterogenous, perhaps forever, > invalidating assume-each-party-uses-HD logic. If the remote party is one of the parties involved in a multisig, and speaks the "Lets set up a multisig wallet together / Lets spend from a multisig" protocols, then it should be perfectly reasonable to assume that they're HD-capable. Remote parties paying into a multisig, or receiving funds from a multisig, don't have to support it (that's what P2SH gives us). -- -- Gavin Andresen --20cf300fb33dff332004f45576f9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
Sure, but I don't see wallets being able= to _assume_ _remote_ parties
have an HD wallet for a long, long time. =A0Interoperability common
sense implies the environment will be heterogenous, perhaps forever,
invalidating assume-each-party-uses-HD logic.

If the remote party is one of the parties involved in a multisig, and sp= eaks the "Lets set up a multisig wallet together / Lets spend from a m= ultisig" protocols, then it should be perfectly reasonable to assume t= hat they're HD-capable.

Remote parties paying into a multisig, or receivi= ng funds from a multisig, don't have to support it (that's what P2S= H gives us).

--
--
Gavin Andresen
--20cf300fb33dff332004f45576f9--