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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YVqSv-0003rX-SC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:55:05 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.177 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.177; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f177.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com ([209.85.223.177])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YVqSu-0008O7-Q1
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:55:05 +0000
Received: by iecvj10 with SMTP id vj10so2973741iec.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.155.13 with SMTP id d13mr68587595ioe.29.1426118099298;
Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.36.54.147 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5500D4C3.4090207@niftybox.net>
References: <54F32EED.6040103@electrum.org>
<CANEZrP23buJF0ENfrKGRuzpQ3Uod09s-kRcb3CBw1-OmUxEyZg@mail.gmail.com>
<550057FD.6030402@electrum.org>
<CANEZrP2UrRYG2wh3DHHj9B3Sp1X=n+gPCRcoj1Fouu4Lg157UA@mail.gmail.com>
<1426100677.1908596.239033309.7C4F8D47@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<CALC81CPonBX5pGucU9Pu7P7S042c+h8=vNvocX=7f9Yi_kqv5w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgRuBwn6HXeZeth+x-R8DAdsVZmYy4nMA3kN+oJaURftgw@mail.gmail.com>
<CACq0ZD64rZAQs1mWQdwgx1WJq2btAVs3GbegPpkO-Wh49SoGeA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3ri6QDqomWKMnLqj_ZJxVDOY4QRvWa=L4RzdKFzz+WsQ@mail.gmail.com>
<5500D4C3.4090207@niftybox.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:54:59 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: hopD65_TdzlIaGthYbMm7rEM5Sw
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2TiM3N9gj_rAT3v24=CJBDVTBh1urnRQxZMLM6D8J13Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: devrandom <c1.sf-bitcoin@niftybox.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141bd00b771b705110bfe73
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1YVqSu-0008O7-Q1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged
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: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:55:05 -0000
--001a1141bd00b771b705110bfe73
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I'd like to offer that the best practice for the shared wallet use case
> should be multi-device multi-sig.
Sure. But in practice people will want to have a pool of spending money
that they can spend when they are out and about, and also with one click
from their web browser on their primary computer, and maybe also on their
games console, etc etc.
I don't think we can realistically tell people to *always* use clever
multi-device wallets - there will always be a desire to have a convenient
hot wallet that's synchronised between different devices.
--001a1141bd00b771b705110bfe73
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'd like to offer that the best practice for=
the shared wallet use case<br>
should be multi-device multi-sig.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure. But=
in practice people will want to have a pool of spending money that they ca=
n spend when they are out and about, and also with one click from their web=
browser on their primary computer, and maybe also on their games console, =
etc etc.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't think we can realistically te=
ll people to <i>always</i>=C2=A0use clever multi-device wallets - there wil=
l always be a desire to have a convenient hot wallet that's synchronise=
d between different devices.</div></div></div></div>
--001a1141bd00b771b705110bfe73--
|
