Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WNNm1-0006vZ-CD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:35:17 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.46; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-wg0-f46.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WNNm0-0004Ck-EU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:35:17 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id b13so4059405wgh.29 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:35:10 -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=QxI/uq7MJSMlW3Py6IAs4zKbCTb0/mTH44mxTLECgiw=; b=Kbeap4OH4v8JxeyYCJukyUey87E4qAjVfmj5cFCaxFyFZW/3zIRxw4Cdy3+5ST8mEq 1HsfEF+ZXqRNmUKz3fDGopieufBt9WcDpDVv0oVB9z7BWfsPSAtdhhlrPnPSpwDgZNeU 0M9nXcSCI9qtzgWTHjpDZXMk1mumOZZrUBdATp45RmT/OlnAVvIt1tPRXw9C/B6uWRHp xL95yJK8ToWv5bGijGGTdYBIC3cK+z+g61yf11J+1Bu9xK39HvTFByh933vPu2LxFNQd Jcdt1gjS1GVqb7WiyQCrQ9B1mchMLNy0TeQpo6+MJkxnjT/flDOMs9nnt4WBw3uwanHt +bQw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkFL9/jzjTgdo3+yV3OiJVep7MrOmlgyy42vlu5cbWDN4kXe35MZBfBLbkkzT0V/tap7YSt X-Received: by 10.180.149.143 with SMTP id ua15mr3241968wib.36.1394548510213; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:35:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.82.197 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:34:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <531DFDF8.80008@gmail.com> <531E52FE.5090107@jerviss.org> <531E5454.1030601@gmail.com> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:34:50 -0400 Message-ID: To: Gavin Andresen 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: 1WNNm0-0004Ck-EU Cc: Bitcoin Dev , kjj 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: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:35:17 -0000 On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > If the remote party is one of the parties involved in a multisig, and speaks > the "Lets set up a multisig wallet together / Lets spend from a multisig" > protocols, then it should be perfectly reasonable to assume that they're > HD-capable. Disagree. It is an unnecessary restriction. People are already writing and starting to deploy multisig wallets in the field, that do not match this assumption. In general, HD is really cool, but even the barest amount of infrastructure is lacking. Popular libraries and the reference client all lack support. Building a protocol that assumes HD is optimistic at this stage. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/