From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 01:27:41 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.10.15-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <20131102050144.5850@gmx.com> <201311030033.56983.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAJfRnm6eRRF1ZxRJ89enPNkaG3-BNyboP9DujmuBgQxNhdhU8g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJfRnm6eRRF1ZxRJ89enPNkaG3-BNyboP9DujmuBgQxNhdhU8g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201311030127.43010.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Message Signing based authentication
Precedence: list

On Sunday, November 03, 2013 1:19:51 AM Allen Piscitello wrote:
> I actually had a use case in my case where it was possible, and that was
> the check I used to get around it, just configured it so that I always
> generated a new key when I needed to set up a 2 of 2 Multisig Refund Tx.
>  It was either that or making sure I had no unspent outputs.  The use case
> of doing it was laziness in just creating a single key.

Use cases mean an actual use, not mere laziness. Bitcoin as a system has 
always required a unique EC key (and address) for each transaction.

Luke