Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-03-11 📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-03-11
📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Gavin Andresen
<gavinandresen at gmail.com> 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/
📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Gavin Andresen
<gavinandresen at gmail.com> 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/