{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-03-11\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Sure, but I don't see wallets being able to _assume_ _remote_ parties\n\u003e have an HD wallet for a long, long time.  Interoperability common\n\u003e sense implies the environment will be heterogenous, perhaps forever,\n\u003e invalidating assume-each-party-uses-HD logic.\n\n\nIf the remote party is one of the parties involved in a multisig, and\nspeaks the \"Lets set up a multisig wallet together / Lets spend from a\nmultisig\" protocols, then it should be perfectly reasonable to assume that\nthey're HD-capable.\n\nRemote parties paying into a multisig, or receiving funds from a multisig,\ndon't have to support it (that's what P2SH gives us).\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140311/2aba3b81/attachment.html\u003e"}