📅 Original date posted:2012-02-06
📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
And maybe WalletModel::sendCoins has to be changed.
Does CScript.SetBitcoinAddress work for the new address type?
Wladimir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120206/71a12fad/attachment.html>;
Wladimir [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…ymc2p
2023-06-07 03:06:34
in reply to nevent1q…txvn
Author Public Key
npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2pSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 03:06:34Event JSON
{
"id": "ce2cc4391258f69b2340608124ff9c6727fefd4d8e7f516b635dbf30e08c79f6",
"pubkey": "30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722",
"created_at": 1686107194,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed61b70e310e7def843c982fb2279c74ba8561e93b0470ad95e3abc0fde3ab55",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"05775690d12a61f5370eeb91a5f4bd24eb8422222c1f5c4f6142f7d626513027",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-02-06\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Wladimir \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003ewrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Advantage of (2) is it should mean more testing of multisig, and fewer\n\u003e\u003e bug reports of \"I added a multisig address via RPC but I can't send to\n\u003e\u003e it using the GUI\"\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e My opinion: I think it is worth allowing send-to-multisig-address via\n\u003e\u003e the GUI (should be a very simple change to the address validation\n\u003e\u003e logic). But creating multisig addresses via the GUI should wait until\n\u003e\u003e the next release.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I think we should go with (2), changing the maximum address length and\n\u003e validation is very easy. We'd need to\n\u003e\n\nAnd maybe WalletModel::sendCoins has to be changed.\nDoes CScript.SetBitcoinAddress work for the new address type?\n\nWladimir\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120206/71a12fad/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "d5d8cf092e6551e21533a8daeb8268fbc3b65e7b2064b30824798c02e18df5235ce70967ad1bdef91a4e4fc9256d4e5ce6c68151ebc2b48f16d4621f29175376"
}