rich1.0npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 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/