Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1We9Ht-0003Aj-53
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:33:29 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.174 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.174; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f174.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1We9Ho-00051l-MZ
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:33:29 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id gq1so5777107obb.33
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.66.202 with SMTP id h10mr13957441obt.38.1398544399367;
	Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABQSq2Sgb+JahuL+PTBa6y4OmupUVrg=TQqpQBVJDG96DSj1hA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABQSq2Q98K5zbUbQAqSE4OYez2QuOaWTt+9n5iZmSR2boynf_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3EGNsOgHm0P6fiU1P7OSgTd=pBYooPBrLQGMKPT9b8Qg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABQSq2Sgb+JahuL+PTBa6y4OmupUVrg=TQqpQBVJDG96DSj1hA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 22:33:19 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: KNUs4oqRa-ETGBjBnW1b3SHHYX8
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2_TX8HMOkVRcucfrF7bDoQBTegDwZbRN4932UzZYZ3gg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Manuel Araoz <manu@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160c34e20865504f7f7fede
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: 1We9Ho-00051l-MZ
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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 20:33:29 -0000

--089e0160c34e20865504f7f7fede
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> Let's assume we use one shared branch for everyone. Then two cosigners
> could need a new receiving address at the same time, and get the next
> unused address on that branch.
>
This is the part I struggle to understand. There is no shared branch
because each user/cosigner has their own unique seed and thus unique key
hierarchy, right? What you described above could be an issue if all
co-signers shared the same seed but then the scheme wouldn't work.

--089e0160c34e20865504f7f7fede
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">Let&#39;s assume we use one share=
d branch for everyone. Then two cosigners could need a new receiving addres=
s at the same time, and get the next unused address on that branch.</p>
</blockquote><div>This is the part I struggle to understand. There is no sh=
ared branch because each user/cosigner has their own unique seed and thus u=
nique key hierarchy, right? What you described above could be an issue if a=
ll co-signers shared the same seed but then the scheme wouldn&#39;t work.</=
div>
</div></div></div>

--089e0160c34e20865504f7f7fede--