Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1RuSun-0004Ah-1l for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:03:45 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.160.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.47; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-pw0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-pw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RuSuj-0004oM-9r for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:03:45 +0000 Received: by pbbb4 with SMTP id b4so5830681pbb.34 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:03:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.218.5 with SMTP id pc5mr49198253pbc.101.1328551415373; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.43.2 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:03:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJC7N3k8n335mHa7hU-Lq4uO6mu1QBLX30G+68cBtDSg3w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CABsx9T09h4EQ=3BFyu-7k9D_t1ryWoC5go4yu4xwsaob9ciK6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+s+GJC7N3k8n335mHa7hU-Lq4uO6mu1QBLX30G+68cBtDSg3w@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 19:03:35 +0100 Message-ID: <CA+s+GJDvo9FbX9L2_zf3NC=aYjV6RiC=ssbZg5gDJXWxX6UqPg@mail.gmail.com> From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff244812de01b04b84f7bb5 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (laanwj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1RuSuj-0004oM-9r Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Multisignature transaction support in the GUI X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:03:45 -0000 --e89a8ff244812de01b04b84f7bb5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> Advantage of (2) is it should mean more testing of multisig, and fewer >> bug reports of "I added a multisig address via RPC but I can't send to >> it using the GUI" >> >> My opinion: I think it is worth allowing send-to-multisig-address via >> the GUI (should be a very simple change to the address validation >> logic). But creating multisig addresses via the GUI should wait until >> the next release. >> > > I think we should go with (2), changing the maximum address length and > validation is very easy. We'd need to > And maybe WalletModel::sendCoins has to be changed. Does CScript.SetBitcoinAddress work for the new address type? Wladimir --e89a8ff244812de01b04b84f7bb5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Wladimir <sp= an dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:laanwj@gmail.com">laanwj@gmail.com</a>= ></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0= 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"im">On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:07 PM= , Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmai= l.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br> Advantage of (2) is it should mean more testing of multisig, and fewer<br> bug reports of "I added a multisig address via RPC but I can't sen= d to<br> it using the GUI"<br> <br> My opinion: I think it is worth allowing send-to-multisig-address via<br> the GUI (should be a very simple change to the address validation<br> logic). =C2=A0But creating multisig addresses via the GUI should wait until= <br> the next release.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div>I think we should go= with (2),=C2=A0changing the maximum address length and validation is very = easy. We'd need to</div></blockquote><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></d= iv> And maybe WalletModel::sendCoins has to be changed. Does=C2=A0CScript.SetBi= tcoinAddress work for the new address type?</div><div><div><br><div class= =3D"gmail_quote"><div>Wladimir</div><div><br></div></div></div></div> --e89a8ff244812de01b04b84f7bb5--