On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I've pinged some people privately but also pinging the list… no
> commentary on this proposal?
One possible reason is that non-subscribed users aren't able to access
the file through sourceforge. The attachment through their web
interface
I'm in favor of BIP43.
Adding a "Purpose" node can be used as an identifier for what kind of
tree is in the wallet file we're reading. I can envision a few
different, common tree structures. Perhaps using a non-hardened
first-layer derivation (we have clients who want this). Similarly, my
prop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 09/26/2014 01:53 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Justus Ranvier
> wrote:
>> Two draft information BIPs are attached.
>
> I've pinged some people privately but also pinging the list… no
> commentary on this proposa
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Justus Ranvier wrote:
> Two draft information BIPs are attached.
I've pinged some people privately but also pinging the list… no
commentary on this proposal?
--
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Complian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
We'd like to reserve two purpose codes for the HD multisig structure
that will be used for the Bitcoin wallets used for voting pools, so
we've documented the structure in the form of two BIPs. One is used
for the wallets suitable for storing bulk bit
5 matches
Mail list logo
