Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <thomasv1@gmx.de>) id 1WdzWk-0007hG-7g for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:08:10 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=thomasv1@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net; Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WdzWj-0004QU-0A for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:08:10 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.27] ([86.73.30.202]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LzLJR-1WzhFj2m9J-014UVV for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:08:02 +0200 Message-ID: <535B8582.80706@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:08:02 +0200 From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv1@gmx.de> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <CABQSq2Q98K5zbUbQAqSE4OYez2QuOaWTt+9n5iZmSR2boynf_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP3EGNsOgHm0P6fiU1P7OSgTd=pBYooPBrLQGMKPT9b8Qg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3EGNsOgHm0P6fiU1P7OSgTd=pBYooPBrLQGMKPT9b8Qg@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:gyRBjAFq2qsj9sl4v5GBFV/pGF7fVHYLcg+mLaCd/3TkH0sHHvd ZhLsHp0ZVNeTJCGjs09ht3kHnJDk3v9c5rz6N0doJEXdsvJBFGx2sv7hhuUwAfy8VLeHrYb wfsuv8D7oLHdLCkzOXgEpBCJo0JVIywkmZtA7S+aSV+WcDDCrYNM3uzsZGa/Jifk+HOZQOn N4tI5eh3ctfn//70vbbtA== X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [212.227.15.18 listed in list.dnswl.org] -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 (thomasv1[at]gmx.de) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (thomasv1[at]gmx.de) X-Headers-End: 1WdzWj-0004QU-0A 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: <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: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:08:10 -0000 Le 26/04/2014 11:43, Mike Hearn a �crit : > I'm not sure I understand why you need any special structure for this at > all. The way I'd do it is just use regular HD wallets for everyone, of the > regular form, and then swap the watching keys. Why do people need to be > given a cosigner index at all, given that they all have unique root keys > anyway? > > I agree with that. 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.