diff options
| author | Martin Habovštiak <martin.habovstiak@gmail.com> | 2015-02-01 15:14:03 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-02-01 14:14:10 +0000 |
| commit | c895e5d96f57f09f3f8eb7793731a4e1a6a41300 (patch) | |
| tree | 36f348fba49818e9f46d2f3107adbca4627bce10 | |
| parent | ce533176362144af756a4872e7160df6f5e47f4b (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-c895e5d96f57f09f3f8eb7793731a4e1a6a41300.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-c895e5d96f57f09f3f8eb7793731a4e1a6a41300.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP: protocol for multisignature payments
| -rw-r--r-- | 1e/997c1f5d842b3e04dd8cf9f88c259e7e4c91d7 | 119 |
1 files changed, 119 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/1e/997c1f5d842b3e04dd8cf9f88c259e7e4c91d7 b/1e/997c1f5d842b3e04dd8cf9f88c259e7e4c91d7 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7d8b9d6b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/1e/997c1f5d842b3e04dd8cf9f88c259e7e4c91d7 @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <martin.habovstiak@gmail.com>) id 1YHvHu-0007zI-3I + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 01 Feb 2015 14:14:10 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.192.44 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.192.44; + envelope-from=martin.habovstiak@gmail.com; + helo=mail-qg0-f44.google.com; +Received: from mail-qg0-f44.google.com ([209.85.192.44]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1YHvHs-0005eD-Tx + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 01 Feb 2015 14:14:10 +0000 +Received: by mail-qg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id l89so44338225qgf.3 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Sun, 01 Feb 2015 06:14:03 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.224.98.143 with SMTP id q15mr31334126qan.29.1422800043471; + Sun, 01 Feb 2015 06:14:03 -0800 (PST) +Received: by 10.140.19.18 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 06:14:03 -0800 (PST) +In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2xEEO5AzkiBW2PE9SrZ+xmCGHME_-z851Wn1Oqh_DKvw@mail.gmail.com> +References: <1422667849.25602.6.camel@TARDIS> + <CANEZrP2V0+M5B0P3T6cUqmSh-0FTP5_VgNcegwQTQQM7XMfMsA@mail.gmail.com> + <CALkkCJav7gQuDuPvWc_SOgVJGyfAorSWGHMvUjUTGZBJcGnNYQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CANEZrP2mv2yNtHN7KWFn6crHT_KhrW-GBB0EmK-BOrJQeEqMrg@mail.gmail.com> + <CABsx9T2d8ahBo7PC9S5UteHXcVLFtXT7NXjtSS+2sLamQYum1w@mail.gmail.com> + <CALkkCJahDRBbCeKZYnL16VXugKkJ7vyZmzvfJOHkBbcqKfGcrg@mail.gmail.com> + <CANEZrP2xEEO5AzkiBW2PE9SrZ+xmCGHME_-z851Wn1Oqh_DKvw@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 15:14:03 +0100 +Message-ID: <CALkkCJY+EF7UsRxrkjz0L8-Y9EWGxOS3p8c1+0=c5fvcWwEfTw@mail.gmail.com> +From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Habov=C5=A1tiak?= <martin.habovstiak@gmail.com> +To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) +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 + (martin.habovstiak[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + -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 + 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address +X-Headers-End: 1YHvHs-0005eD-Tx +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 14:14:10 -0000 + +Both wallet and server side implementations will be based on existing +code in me-friendly language (C++>Python>anything else). I don't have +a time for it right now but Crypto hackathon in Parallel Polis +(http://cryptohack.org/) seems like good opportunity for it. I will +let you know then. + +2015-02-01 14:43 GMT+01:00 Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>: +> If you decide to implement this in an existing or new bitcoinj based wall= +et, +> then I'm happy to give you pointers on how to do it. Making one-off, cros= +s +> platform app specific wallets is pretty easy these days. For 2-of-3 dispu= +te +> mediation transactions they'd start out being kind of specialist so askin= +g +> 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 <gavinandresen@gmail.com>: +>> > I agree- standards should be descriptive ("here is how this thing I di= +d +>> > 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 +> +> + + |