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
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1RuSun-0004Ah-1l
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:03:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.160.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.160.47; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pw0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-pw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RuSuj-0004oM-9r
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:03:45 +0000
Received: by pbbb4 with SMTP id b4so5830681pbb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:03:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.218.5 with SMTP id pc5mr49198253pbc.101.1328551415373; Mon,
06 Feb 2012 10:03:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.43.2 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:03:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJC7N3k8n335mHa7hU-Lq4uO6mu1QBLX30G+68cBtDSg3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T09h4EQ=3BFyu-7k9D_t1ryWoC5go4yu4xwsaob9ciK6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJC7N3k8n335mHa7hU-Lq4uO6mu1QBLX30G+68cBtDSg3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 19:03:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJDvo9FbX9L2_zf3NC=aYjV6RiC=ssbZg5gDJXWxX6UqPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff244812de01b04b84f7bb5
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
(laanwj[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: 1RuSuj-0004oM-9r
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Multisignature transaction support in the
GUI
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, 06 Feb 2012 18:03:45 -0000
--e89a8ff244812de01b04b84f7bb5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Advantage of (2) is it should mean more testing of multisig, and fewer
>> bug reports of "I added a multisig address via RPC but I can't send to
>> it using the GUI"
>>
>> My opinion: I think it is worth allowing send-to-multisig-address via
>> the GUI (should be a very simple change to the address validation
>> logic). But creating multisig addresses via the GUI should wait until
>> the next release.
>>
>
> I think we should go with (2), changing the maximum address length and
> validation is very easy. We'd need to
>
And maybe WalletModel::sendCoins has to be changed.
Does CScript.SetBitcoinAddress work for the new address type?
Wladimir
--e89a8ff244812de01b04b84f7bb5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Wladimir <sp=
an dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:laanwj@gmail.com">laanwj@gmail.com</a>=
></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"im">On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:07 PM=
, Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmai=
l.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Advantage of (2) is it should mean more testing of multisig, and fewer<br>
bug reports of "I added a multisig address via RPC but I can't sen=
d to<br>
it using the GUI"<br>
<br>
My opinion: I think it is worth allowing send-to-multisig-address via<br>
the GUI (should be a very simple change to the address validation<br>
logic). =C2=A0But creating multisig addresses via the GUI should wait until=
<br>
the next release.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div>I think we should go=
with (2),=C2=A0changing the maximum address length and validation is very =
easy. We'd need to</div></blockquote><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></d=
iv>
And maybe WalletModel::sendCoins has to be changed. Does=C2=A0CScript.SetBi=
tcoinAddress work for the new address type?</div><div><div><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><div>Wladimir</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--e89a8ff244812de01b04b84f7bb5--
|
