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'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't work.</= div> </div></div></div> --089e0160c34e20865504f7f7fede--