Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2014-03-11 š Original message:On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at ...
š
Original date posted:2014-03-11
š Original message:On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> Sure, but I don't see wallets being able to _assume_ _remote_ parties
> have an HD wallet for a long, long time. Interoperability common
> sense implies the environment will be heterogenous, perhaps forever,
> invalidating assume-each-party-uses-HD logic.
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.
Remote parties paying into a multisig, or receiving funds from a multisig,
don't have to support it (that's what P2SH gives us).
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140311/2aba3b81/attachment.html>;
š Original message:On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> Sure, but I don't see wallets being able to _assume_ _remote_ parties
> have an HD wallet for a long, long time. Interoperability common
> sense implies the environment will be heterogenous, perhaps forever,
> invalidating assume-each-party-uses-HD logic.
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.
Remote parties paying into a multisig, or receiving funds from a multisig,
don't have to support it (that's what P2SH gives us).
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140311/2aba3b81/attachment.html>;