blob: 2ce8ed48a3ebed78cbe94a9748ac26d6a903298b (
plain)
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
|
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 <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1VcmTo-0004uw-7z
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:52 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1VcmTn-0008E9-A3 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:52 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BFCB1080838;
Sun, 3 Nov 2013 01:27:50 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 01:27:41 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.10.15-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <20131102050144.5850@gmx.com> <201311030033.56983.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAJfRnm6eRRF1ZxRJ89enPNkaG3-BNyboP9DujmuBgQxNhdhU8g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJfRnm6eRRF1ZxRJ89enPNkaG3-BNyboP9DujmuBgQxNhdhU8g@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201311030127.43010.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1VcmTn-0008E9-A3
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Message Signing based authentication
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: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:27:52 -0000
On Sunday, November 03, 2013 1:19:51 AM Allen Piscitello wrote:
> I actually had a use case in my case where it was possible, and that was
> the check I used to get around it, just configured it so that I always
> generated a new key when I needed to set up a 2 of 2 Multisig Refund Tx.
> It was either that or making sure I had no unspent outputs. The use case
> of doing it was laziness in just creating a single key.
Use cases mean an actual use, not mere laziness. Bitcoin as a system has
always required a unique EC key (and address) for each transaction.
Luke
|
