Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WN4K7-0005aF-5O for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:49:11 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.51; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-yh0-f51.google.com; Received: from mail-yh0-f51.google.com ([209.85.213.51]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WN4K6-0000ae-8l for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:49:11 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f51.google.com with SMTP id f10so7476862yha.10 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:49:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.80.8 with SMTP id j8mr2464453yhe.151.1394473744800; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.133.195 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:49:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:49:04 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Drak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fb33d35243004f444382c X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1WN4K6-0000ae-8l Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:49:11 -0000 --20cf300fb33d35243004f444382c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In my experience, best process for standardizing something is: 1) Somebody has a great idea 2) They implement it 3) Everybody agrees, "Great idea!" and they copy it. 4) Idea gets refined by the people copying it. 5) It gets standardized. Mutisig wallets are at step 2 right now. BIP is step 5, in my humble opinion... On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Drak wrote: > I was wondering if there would be merit in a kind of BIP for a payment > protocol using multisig? > > Currently, setting up a multisig is quite a feat. Users have to exchange > public keys, work out how to get the public keys from their addresses. If > one of the parties are not savvy enough, an malicious party could easily be > setup that was 2 of 3 instead of 2 of 2 where the malicious party generates > the multisig address+script and thus be able to run off with funds anyway. > > It's also terribly complex to generate and keep track of. There's been a > nice attempt at creating an browser interface at coinb.in/multisig but it > still lacks the kind of ease with created by the payment protocol. If there > was a BIP then it would go a long way to aiding future usability of > multisig wallet implementations. > > What are your thoughts? > > Drak > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book > "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their > applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, > this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > -- -- Gavin Andresen --20cf300fb33d35243004f444382c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In my experience, best process for standardizing something= is:

1) Somebody has a great idea
2) They impl= ement it
3) Everybody agrees, "Great idea!" and they co= py it.
4) Idea gets refined by the people copying it.
5) It gets st= andardized.

Mutisig wallets are at step 2 right no= w. BIP is step 5, in my humble opinion...




O= n Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Drak <drak@zikula.org> wrote:<= br>
I was wondering if there would be merit in a kind of BIP f= or a payment protocol using multisig?

Currently, setting up a = multisig is quite a feat. Users have to exchange public keys, work out how = to get the public keys from their addresses. If one of the parties are not = savvy enough, an malicious party could easily be setup that was 2 of 3 inst= ead of 2 of 2 where the malicious party generates the multisig address+scri= pt and thus be able to run off with funds anyway.


What are your thoughts?

Drak

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases = and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf= .net/sfu/13534_NeoTech
_____________________________________________= __
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment




--
--
Ga= vin Andresen
--20cf300fb33d35243004f444382c--