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 1YHuoa-0001xl-7t for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 01 Feb 2015 13:43:52 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.176; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f176.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com ([74.125.82.176]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YHuoZ-0002eR-60 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 01 Feb 2015 13:43:52 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w62so34619858wes.7 for ; Sun, 01 Feb 2015 05:43:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.60.77 with SMTP id f13mr32405910wjr.105.1422798225128; Sun, 01 Feb 2015 05:43:45 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 05:43:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1422667849.25602.6.camel@TARDIS> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 14:43:45 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2i0qgeLvb8UiPW4RYFcUzpQC8TQ Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Habov=C5=A1tiak?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86db8acbc468050e070668 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1YHuoZ-0002eR-60 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP: protocol for multisignature payments 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: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 13:43:52 -0000 --047d7b86db8acbc468050e070668 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you decide to implement this in an existing or new bitcoinj based wallet, then I'm happy to give you pointers on how to do it. Making one-off, cross platform app specific wallets is pretty easy these days. For 2-of-3 dispute mediation transactions they'd start out being kind of specialist so asking people to move money from their general spending wallet into dispute mediation app isn't unthinkable. Eventually general purpose wallets would integrate protocol, UI ideas and maybe code. At least, that's how I'd do it. On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Martin Habov=C5=A1tiak < martin.habovstiak@gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't consider that, thank you for feedback! I will try to find > some time for implementing it. I'll write again then. > > 2015-01-31 23:50 GMT+02:00 Gavin Andresen : > > I agree- standards should be descriptive ("here is how this thing I did > > works") and NOT proscriptive ("here's what I think will work, lets all > try > > to do it this way."). > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > >>> > >>> I could look at implementing it someday, but now I'd like to receive > >>> feedback from community. > >> > >> > >> IMO it's better to pair a protocol spec with an implementation. > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Gavin Andresen > --047d7b86db8acbc468050e070668 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If you decide to implement this in an existing or new bitc= oinj based wallet, then I'm happy to give you pointers on how to do it.= Making one-off, cross platform app specific wallets is pretty easy these d= ays. For 2-of-3 dispute mediation transactions they'd start out being k= ind of specialist so asking people to move money from their general spendin= g wallet into dispute mediation app isn't unthinkable. Eventually gener= al purpose wallets would integrate protocol, UI ideas and maybe code.
<= br>
At least, that's how I'd do it.

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 12:0= 2 AM, Martin Habov=C5=A1tiak <martin.habovstiak@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
I didn't consider tha= t, thank you for feedback! I will try to find
some time for implementing it. I'll write again then.

2015-01-31 23:50 GMT+02:00 Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>:
> I agree- standards should be descriptive ("here is how this thing= I did
> works") and NOT proscriptive ("here's what I think will = work, lets all try
> to do it this way.").
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I could look at implementing it someday, but now I'd like = to receive
>>> feedback from community.
>>
>>
>> IMO it's better to pair a protocol spec with an implementation= .
>
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen

--047d7b86db8acbc468050e070668--