1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1WeaVb-0006de-GV
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:37:27 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 209.85.212.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.180; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WeaVa-0004JH-LQ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:37:27 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q5so4913331wiv.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:37:20 -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=Dl0IwtplQXuF1xiU1Tpm1wBm3rs1C6f8vM+9BtqkGpU=;
b=huQv+1z1Jz8VhgDjwGc9cplFgJ2dDE8M7algJBFvK+sw7ob3AGJ0PeBCfdg2cHbRzo
LcqWxQ9pt/m04johnQrFn7xoQhCS+7hB4yCJRAobtgKzIp4wYVcIUkFs+jISqX+x++5O
JaXdifOdr5/kxSk9frw1r1aGJrTsbN4En0I3j4SjgIAE2jPYz6T9crohAWYigVZuVTja
uAnGdIL/XbRm0Q6t/DZx+YTasUOcxzBnBTJVCC7jIxWxBPam9c04eu9BPEQjYX5ZKLWE
EGflGwF+B6GkxstdSuVLWfj8LcExZh2OCtI/77OY1xXaQqq4+4s8E6zKGL+vgK4ZT5DZ
3+EQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQljUvnYfTKjyEqH+jzrfmSylrNjQikQMJ8Xy7v8DTmxKpoxCbdneRAjeXl9kZ0SSbMpwVH7
X-Received: by 10.180.93.101 with SMTP id ct5mr12963638wib.23.1398649040438;
Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.243.138 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <535B8582.80706@gmx.de>
References: <CABQSq2Q98K5zbUbQAqSE4OYez2QuOaWTt+9n5iZmSR2boynf_Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3EGNsOgHm0P6fiU1P7OSgTd=pBYooPBrLQGMKPT9b8Qg@mail.gmail.com>
<535B8582.80706@gmx.de>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:37:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0MQ=bC54PEQRfNXM6KpmP4Ut=zTXC1327yVX4sE6FrBrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv1@gmx.de>
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: 1WeaVa-0004JH-LQ
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: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:37:27 -0000
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv1@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.
Yes. That solution is already implemented in a few wallets.
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
|
