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 ) id 1WNNRg-00075K-0z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:14:16 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.181; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-we0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com ([74.125.82.181]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WNNRe-0000H4-8z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:14:16 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q58so9933683wes.26 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:14:08 -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=eCNOLAXZoscRPGfSPj4/UN77/tkI7kfDEuSqcUIfUZE=; b=fyDitcspqP0w2L963N8UdN6BIEzzk/4Lwy2eTe0Cz7g9P1vRhlw65pvczM+KMD/O6h B4gjMCA/wNpRrBgl36M7Pe83ID3LFv0Wx+ZY/NyIR6QG/7x2Je0GYftBi+2rpTDA19qH Q2eLE6t69Lg5ZlO7S3LzdfCJ9Mtcpb2koZF7KiMEmsr4MwqqxwoJ+oZGupNC5UaZujMz fflvqPv55svGZk0IqFBxRAott6rZk4SmZ/Jn2AXsbWFrruXiBBvl5xTlqnb5YykZWubL WwCdY//2rIktGen2EV9yofZK6P+7MogYu+lxPdGttxuKnSz3eOTxU/Se/IV47QgX/Gik I2QA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkx7QMc9UkY3tFJn+H6stisTNrTk42aPFwViky6O3dccCgO/jTt7eLePayX9Uiu161rMUWl X-Received: by 10.180.87.162 with SMTP id az2mr3241768wib.23.1394547248176; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:14:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.82.197 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:13:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <531DFDF8.80008@gmail.com> <531E52FE.5090107@jerviss.org> <531E5454.1030601@gmail.com> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:13:48 -0400 Message-ID: To: Gavin Andresen 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: 1WNNRe-0000H4-8z 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 14:14:16 -0000 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. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Drak wrote: >> > I very much like the idea of assuming each party uses HD wallets, that >> > certainly simplifies things greatly. >> >> It also assumes a reality different from our current one. > > > Multisig wallets are a different reality from our current one, so when we > move to that new reality we should do it correctly from the beginning. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andrese -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/