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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bgroff@lavabit.com>) id 1QrZjt-0003VM-FF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:12:17 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of lavabit.com
designates 72.249.41.33 as permitted sender)
client-ip=72.249.41.33; envelope-from=bgroff@lavabit.com;
helo=karen.lavabit.com;
Received: from karen.lavabit.com ([72.249.41.33])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1QrZjs-0004fX-HJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:12:17 +0000
Received: from a.earth.lavabit.com (a.earth.lavabit.com [192.168.111.10])
by karen.lavabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FAF011BA97;
Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:49:21 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from lavabit.com (tory.uvt.nl [137.56.163.64])
by lavabit.com with ESMTP id 1G4SHIH8WWTR;
Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:49:21 -0500
Received: from 137.56.163.64 (SquirrelMail authenticated user bgroff)
by lavabit.com with HTTP; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:49:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <11231.137.56.163.64.1313084961.squirrel@lavabit.com>
In-Reply-To: <1312995554.17416.22.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
References: <CABsx9T2pTg8YG_Q09cnAvsrxquLO-6cWr1tb=fdWtLPBEyJzng@mail.gmail.com>
<1312995554.17416.22.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:49:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: bgroff@lavabit.com
To: "Matt Corallo" <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--)
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
-0.8 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QrZjs-0004fX-HJ
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Roadmap/schedules
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: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:12:17 -0000
Matt Corallo wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 12:29 -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> I've been wading through the pull requests and bug lists to figure out
>> a roadmap for the next few months.
>> ...
>> 3. Wallet security. I'd like to get Matt's wallet encryption shipped
>> soon, along with all or part of groffer's Multisign patch (#319 --
>> since that will enable the creation of trojan-resistant secure wallet
>> solutions).
> I was under the impression all that was left on the to-do for 0.4 was
> wallet import/export testing and merge (and a few bug fixes like #453),
> I agree #319 should be pulled sometime soon, but maybe for 0.4 just the
> IsStandard parts in 0.4 as those need to get out first anyway?
I'm not sure splitting the patch this way makes a big difference. The
IsStandard part depends on the construction of the multisign script, whic=
h
is what most of the patch does anyway. In other words, if upon further
review the script construction needs to change, IsStandard will change.=20
So a full review would be better.
Also, with unit test coverage for both this feature and existing
script.cpp code, I'm hoping that this patch is relatively low risk and
actually pays down some existing test debt.
--
Bobby Groff
|
