rich1.0npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwhttps://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-03-11 📝 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>