Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WeaVb-0006de-GV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:37:27 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.212.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.180; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-wi0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WeaVa-0004JH-LQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:37:27 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q5so4913331wiv.13 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:37:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Dl0IwtplQXuF1xiU1Tpm1wBm3rs1C6f8vM+9BtqkGpU=; b=huQv+1z1Jz8VhgDjwGc9cplFgJ2dDE8M7algJBFvK+sw7ob3AGJ0PeBCfdg2cHbRzo LcqWxQ9pt/m04johnQrFn7xoQhCS+7hB4yCJRAobtgKzIp4wYVcIUkFs+jISqX+x++5O JaXdifOdr5/kxSk9frw1r1aGJrTsbN4En0I3j4SjgIAE2jPYz6T9crohAWYigVZuVTja uAnGdIL/XbRm0Q6t/DZx+YTasUOcxzBnBTJVCC7jIxWxBPam9c04eu9BPEQjYX5ZKLWE EGflGwF+B6GkxstdSuVLWfj8LcExZh2OCtI/77OY1xXaQqq4+4s8E6zKGL+vgK4ZT5DZ 3+EQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQljUvnYfTKjyEqH+jzrfmSylrNjQikQMJ8Xy7v8DTmxKpoxCbdneRAjeXl9kZ0SSbMpwVH7 X-Received: by 10.180.93.101 with SMTP id ct5mr12963638wib.23.1398649040438; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:37:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.243.138 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:37:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <535B8582.80706@gmx.de> References: <535B8582.80706@gmx.de> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:37:00 -0400 Message-ID: To: Thomas Voegtlin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 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 X-Headers-End: 1WeaVa-0004JH-LQ Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure for P2SH multisig wallets 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: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:37:27 -0000 On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Thomas Voegtlin wrote: > Perhaps the only thing that needs to be standardized is the order of > public keys in the redeem script: I think they should be sorted, so that > the p2sh address does not depend on the order of pubkeys. Yes. That solution is already implemented in a few wallets. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/