📅 Original date posted:2012-02-06
📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at 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
- Change BitcoinAddressValidator::MaxAddressLength to 35
- The addresses are validated with walletmodel->validateAddress which in
turn calls CBitcoinAddress addressParsed(addr) and then isValid(). Does
this work for the new addresses?
The set of allowed characters is still the same, so BitcoinAddressValidator
doesn't have to be changed.
Advanced dialogs for constructing the addresses / adding them to the
address book could wait for 0.7.0.
Wladimir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120206/834f01fc/attachment.html>;
Wladimir [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…ymc2p
2023-06-07 03:06:31
in reply to nevent1q…rkmm
Author Public Key
npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2pSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 03:06:31Event JSON
{
"id": "05775690d12a61f5370eeb91a5f4bd24eb8422222c1f5c4f6142f7d626513027",
"pubkey": "30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722",
"created_at": 1686107191,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed61b70e310e7def843c982fb2279c74ba8561e93b0470ad95e3abc0fde3ab55",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7f6dbc3d5c9827b473236f815ba287cc184c395dd2dd68507ecd8c55da91a5d4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-02-06\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003ewrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Advantage of (2) is it should mean more testing of multisig, and fewer\n\u003e bug reports of \"I added a multisig address via RPC but I can't send to\n\u003e it using the GUI\"\n\u003e\n\u003e My opinion: I think it is worth allowing send-to-multisig-address via\n\u003e the GUI (should be a very simple change to the address validation\n\u003e logic). But creating multisig addresses via the GUI should wait until\n\u003e the next release.\n\u003e\n\nI think we should go with (2), changing the maximum address length and\nvalidation is very easy. We'd need to\n\n - Change BitcoinAddressValidator::MaxAddressLength to 35\n - The addresses are validated with walletmodel-\u003evalidateAddress which in\n turn calls CBitcoinAddress addressParsed(addr) and then isValid(). Does\n this work for the new addresses?\n\nThe set of allowed characters is still the same, so BitcoinAddressValidator\ndoesn't have to be changed.\n\nAdvanced dialogs for constructing the addresses / adding them to the\naddress book could wait for 0.7.0.\n\nWladimir\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120206/834f01fc/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "5ecbeb7b58b6f419136a68e4851d33f99385fd732728c43327c435843a5d9454316d7305b9f56539281e8c7cc5cdeb6a45e2ad30886896197a769f1a63827954"
}